Pursuant to Section 595(c) of Title 28, the Office of Independent Counsel
(OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton
obstructed justice during the Jones v. Clinton sexual harassment lawsuit
by lying under oath and concealing evidence of his relationship with a young
White House intern and federal employee, Monica Lewinsky. After a federal
criminal investigation of the President's actions began in January 1998, the
President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice during the
grand jury investigation. There also is substantial and credible information
that the President's actions with respect to Monica Lewinsky constitute an abuse
of authority inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully
execute the laws.

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven
possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a
sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual
relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with
Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky
and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his
discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the
Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an
understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their
relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an
understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their
relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following
means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they
would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship;
(ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an
affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony
under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their
relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit;
(iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his
deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and
(v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition
about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping
Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a
witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his
discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the
Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting
to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in
the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury
investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior
White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false
statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede
the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying
to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the
grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify
voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege;
(v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to
the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to
hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United
States.

The first two possible grounds for impeachment concern the President's lying
under oath about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The
details associated with those grounds are, by their nature, explicit. The
President's testimony unfortunately has rendered the details essential with
respect to those two grounds, as will be explained in those grounds.

On January 17, 1998, Ms. Jones's lawyers deposed President Clinton under
oath with Judge Wright present and presiding over the deposition. Federal law
requires a witness testifying under oath to provide truthful answers. The
intentional failure to provide truthful answers is a crime punishable by
imprisonment

and fine.(3) At
the outset of his deposition, the President took an oath administered by Judge
Wright: "Do you swear or affirm . . . that the testimony you are about
to give in the matter before the court is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The President replied: "I do."(4) At
the beginning of their questioning, Ms. Jones's attorneys asked the
President: "And your testimony is subject to the penalty of perjury; do you
understand that, sir?" The President responded, "I do."(5)

Based on the witness list received in December 1997 (which included Ms.
Lewinsky) and the January 12, 1998, hearing, the President and his attorneys
were aware that Ms. Jones's attorneys likely would question the President
at his deposition about Ms. Lewinsky and the other "Jane Does." In fact,
the attorneys for Ms. Jones did ask numerous questions about "Jane Does,"
including Ms. Lewinsky.

There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied
under oath in answering those questions.

Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every
[federal employee] with whom you had sexual relations when you [were]
. . . President of the United States.(7)

The interrogatory did not define the term "sexual relations." Judge Wright
ordered the President to answer the interrogatory, and on December 23, 1997,
under penalty of perjury, President Clinton answered "None."(8)

At the January 17, 1998, deposition of the President, Ms. Jones's
attorneys asked the President specific questions about possible sexual activity
with Monica Lewinsky. The attorneys used various terms in their questions,
including "sexual affair," "sexual relationship," and "sexual relations." The
terms "sexual affair" and "sexual relationship" were not specially defined by
Ms. Jones's attorneys. The term "sexual relations" was defined:

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations"
when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . . contact with the
genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an
intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person. . . . "Contact" means intentional touching, either
directly or through clothing.(9)

President Clinton answered a series of questions about Ms. Lewinsky,
including:

Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

WJC: No.

Q: If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in
November of 1995, would that be a lie?

WJC: It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

Q: I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely
clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is
defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?

Well, it's real short. He can -- I will permit the question and you may show
the witness definition number one.

WJC: I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never
had an affair with her.(11)

President Clinton reiterated his denial under questioning by his own
attorney:

Q: In paragraph eight of [Ms. Lewinsky's] affidavit, she says this, "I
have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that
we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits
in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other
benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship." Is that a true and accurate
statement as far as you know it?

The ten incidents are recounted here because they are necessary to assess
whether the President lied under oath, both in his civil deposition, where he
denied any sexual relationship at all, and in his grand jury testimony, where he
acknowledged an "inappropriate intimate contact" but denied any sexual
contact with Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia. When reading the
following descriptions, the President's denials under oath should be kept in
mind.

Unfortunately, the nature of the President's denials requires that the
contrary evidence be set forth in detail. If the President, in his grand jury
appearance, had admitted the sexual activity recounted by Ms. Lewinsky and
conceded that he had lied under oath in his civil deposition, these particular
descriptions would be superfluous. Indeed, we refrained from questioning Ms.
Lewinsky under oath about particular details until after the President's August
17 testimony made that questioning necessary. But in view of (i) the President's
denials, (ii) his continued contention that his civil deposition testimony was
legally accurate under the terms and definitions employed, and (iii) his refusal
to answer related questions, the detail is critical. The detail provides
credibility and corroboration to Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. It also
demonstrates with clarity that the Pres ident lied under oath both in his
civil deposition and to the federal grand jury.(14)
There is substantial and credible information that the President's lies about
his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were abundant and calculating.

Ms. Lewinsky testified that her next sexual encounter with the President
occurred on Friday, February 28, 1997, in the early evening.(40) The
President initiated this encounter by having his secretary Betty Currie call
Ms. Lewinsky to invite her to the White House for a radio address. After
the address, Ms. Lewinsky and the President kissed by the bathroom. The
President unbuttoned her dress and fondled her breasts, first with her bra on
and then directly. He touched her genitalia through her clothes, but not
directly, on this occasion. Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on him.(41) On
this day, Ms. Lewinsky was wearing a blue dress that forensic tests have
conclusively shown was stained with the President's semen.(42)

On Sunday, December 28, 1997, three weeks before the President's civil
deposition in the Jones case, the President and Ms. Lewinsky met in
the Oval Office. In addition to discussing a number of issues that are analyzed
below, they engaged in "passionate" kissing -- she said, "I don't call it a
brief kiss." No other sexual contact occurred.(47)

Catherine Allday Davis, a college friend of Monica Lewinsky's,(53)
testified that Ms. Lewinsky told her in late 1995 or early 1996 about
Ms. Lewinsky's sexual relationship with the President.(54)
According to Ms. Davis, Ms. Lewinsky told her that the relationship
included mutual kissing and hugging, as well as oral sex performed by
Ms. Lewinsky on the President. She also stated that the President touched
Monica "on her breasts and on her vagina."(55)
Ms. Davis also described the cigar incident discussed above.(56)
Ms. Davis added that Monica said that she had "phone sex" with the
President five to ten times in 1996 or 1997.(57)

Neysa Erbland, a high school friend of Ms. Lewinsky's,(58)
testified that Ms. Lewinsky told her in 1995 that she was having an affair
with President Clinton.(59)
According to Ms. Erbland, Ms. Lewinsky said that the sexual
relationship began when Ms. Lewinsky was an intern.(60)
Ms. Lewinsky told Ms. Erbland that the sexual contact included oral
sex, kissing, and fondling.(61) On
occasion, as Ms. Erbland described it, the President put his face in
Ms. Lewinsky's bare chest.(62)
Ms. Erbland also said that Ms. Lewinsky described the cigar incident
discussed above.(63)
Ms. Erbland also understood from Ms. Lewinsky that she and the
President engaged in phone sex, normally after midnight.(64)

Ms. Lewinsky told another high school friend, Natalie Rose Ungvari,(65) of
her sexual relationship with the President. Ms. Lewinsky first informed
Ms. Ungvari of the sexual relationship on November 23, 1995.
Ms. Ungvari specifically remembers the date because it was her birthday.(66)
Ms. Ungvari recalled that Ms. Lewinsky said that she performed oral
sex on the President and that he fondled her breasts.(67)
Ms. Lewinsky told Ms. Ungvari that the President sometimes telephoned
Ms. Lewinsky late at night and would ask her to engage in phone sex.(68)

Dr. Irene Kassorla counseled Ms. Lewinsky from 1992 through 1997.(75)
Ms. Lewinsky told her of the sexual relationship with the President.
Ms. Lewinsky said she performed oral sex on the President in a room
adjacent to the Oval Office, that the President touched Ms. Lewinsky
causing her to have orgasms, and that they engaged in fondling and touching of
one another.(76) The
President was in charge of scheduling their sexual encounters and "became
Lewinsky's life."(77)

Kathleen Estep, a counselor for Ms. Lewinsky,(84) met
with Ms. Lewinsky on three occasions in November 1996.(85)
Based on her limited interaction with Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Estep stated
that she considered Ms. Lewinsky to be credible.(86)
During their second session, Ms. Lewinsky told Ms. Estep about her
sexual relationship with President Clinton.(87)
Ms. Lewinsky told Ms. Estep that the physical part of the relationship
involved kissing, Ms. Lewinsky performing oral sex on the President, and
the President fondling her breasts.(88)

The President, however, testified under oath in the civil case -- both in his
deposition and in a written answer to an interrogatory -- that he did not
have a "sexual relationship" or a "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with
Ms. Lewinsky. In addition, he denied engaging in activity covered by a more
specific definition of "sexual relations" used at the deposition.(90)

In his civil case, the President made five different false statements related
to the sexual relationship. For four of the five statements, the President
asserts a semantic defense: The President argues that the terms used in the
Jones deposition to cover sexual activity did not cover the sexual
activity in which he engaged with Ms. Lewinsky. For his other false
statements, the President's response is factual -- namely, he disputes
Ms. Lewinsky's account that he ever touched her breasts or genitalia during
sexual activity.(91)

The President's denials -- semantic and factual -- do not withstand scrutiny.

Third, in an answer to an interrogatory submitted before his
deposition, the President denied having "sexual relations" with
Ms. Lewinsky (the term was not defined). Yet again, the President's
apparent rejoinder to lying under oath on this point rests on his definition of
"sexual relations" -- that it, too, requires sexual intercourse. According to
President Clinton, oral sex does not constitute sexual relations.

Fourth, in his civil deposition, the President denied committing any
acts that fell within the specific definition of "sexual relations" that was in
effect for purposes of that deposition. Under that specific definition, sexual
relations occurs "when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with
an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."(93)
Thus, the President denied engaging in or causing contact with the genitalia,
breasts, or anus of "any person" with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of "any person."

Concerning oral sex, the President's sole answer to the charge that he lied
under oath at the deposition focused on his interpretation of "any person" in
the definition. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she performed oral sex on the
President on nine occasions. The President said that by receiving oral
sex, he would not "engage in" or "cause"(94)
contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of
"any person" because "any person" really means "any other person." The
President further testified before the grand jury: "[I]f the deponent is the
person who has oral sex performed on him, then the contact is with -- not
with anything on that list, but with the lips of another person."(95)

The President's linguistic parsing is unreasonable. Under the President's
interpretation (which he says he followed at his deposition), in an oral sex
encounter, one person is engaged in sexual relations, but the other
person is not engaged in sexual relations.(96)

Even assuming that the definitional language can be manipulated to exclude
the deponent's receipt of oral sex, the President is still left with the
difficulty that reasonable persons would not have understood it that way. And in
context, the President's semantics become even weaker: The Jones suit
rested on the allegation that the President sought to have Ms. Jones
perform oral sex on him. Yet the President now claims that the expansive
definition devised for deposition questioning should be interpreted to exclude
that very act.

Fifth, by denying at his civil deposition that he had engaged in any
acts falling within the specific definition of "sexual relations," the President
denied engaging in or causing contact with the breasts or genitalia of
Ms. Lewinsky with an intent to arouse or gratify one's sexual desire. In
contrast to his explanations of the four preceding false statements under oath,
the President's defense to lying under oath in this instance is purely
factual.

As discussed above, Ms. Lewinsky testified credibly that the President
touched and kissed her bare breasts on nine occasions, and that he stimulated
her genitals on four occasions.(97) She
also testified about a cigar incident, which is discussed above. In addition, a
deleted computer file from Ms. Lewinsky's home computer contained an
apparent draft letter to the President that explicitly referred to an incident
in which the President's "mouth [was] on [her] breast" and implicitly referred
to direct contact with her genitalia.(98)
This draft letter further corroborates Ms. Lewinsky's testimony.

Ms. Lewinsky's prior consistent statements to various friends, family
members, and counselors -- made when the relationship was ongoing -- likewise
corroborate her testimony on the nature of the President's touching of her body.
Ms. Lewinsky had no apparent motive to lie to her friends, family members,
and counselors. Ms. Lewinsky especially had no reason to lie to
Dr. Kassorla and Ms. Estep, to whom she related the facts in the
course of a professional relationship. And Ms. Lewinsky's statements to
some that she did not have intercourse with the President, even though she
wanted to do so, enhances the credibility of her statements. Moreover, the
precise nature of the sexual activity only became relevant after the President
interposed his semantic defense regarding oral sex on August 17, 1998.

By contrast, the President's testimony strains credulity. His apparent
"hands-off" scenario -- in which he would have received oral sex on nine
occasions from Ms. Lewinsky but never made direct contact with
Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia -- is not credible. The President's
claim seems to be that he maintained a hands-off policy in ongoing sexual
encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, which coincidentally happened to permit him
to truthfully deny "sexual relations" with her at a deposition occurring a few
years in the future. As Ms. Lewinsky noted, it suggests some kind of
"service contract -- that all I did was perform oral sex on him and that that's
all this relationship was."(99)

The President also had strong personal, political, and legal motives to lie
in the Jones deposition: He did not want to admit that he had committed
extramarital sex acts with a young intern in the Oval Office area of the White
House. Such an admission could support Ms. Jones's theory of liability and
would embarrass him. Indeed, the President admitted that during the relationship
he did what he could to keep the relationship secret, including "misleading"
members of his family and Cabinet.(100)
The President testified, moreover, that he "hoped that this relationship would
never become public."(101)

At the time of his civil deposition, the President also could have presumed
that he could lie under oath without risk because -- as he knew --
Ms. Lewinsky had already filed a false affidavit denying a sexual
relationship with the President. Indeed, they had an understanding that each
would lie under oath (explained more fully in Ground VI below). So the President
might have expected that he could lie without consequence on the belief that no
one could ever successfully challenge his denial of a sexual relationship with
her.

In sum, based on all of the evidence and considering the President's
various responses, there is substantial and credible information that the
President lied under oath in his civil deposition and his interrogatory answer
in denying a sexual relationship, a sexual affair, or sexual relations with
Ms. Lewinsky.(102)

During his grand jury testimony, the President was asked whether Monica
Lewinsky performed oral sex on him and, if so, whether he had committed perjury
in his civil deposition by denying a sexual relationship, sexual affair, or
sexual relations with her. The President refused to say whether he had oral sex.
Instead, the President said (i) that the undefined terms "sexual affair,"
"sexual relationship," and "sexual relations" necessarily require sexual
intercourse, (ii) that he had not engaged in intercourse with
Ms. Lewinsky, and (iii) that he therefore had not committed perjury in
denying a sexual relationship, sexual affair, or sexual relations.(105)

A more specific definition of "sexual relations" had also been used at the
civil deposition. As to that definition, the President said to the grand jury
that he does not and did not believe oral sex was covered.

Q: [I]s oral sex performed on you within that definition as you understood
it, the definition in the Jones --

The President thus contended that he had not committed perjury on that
question in the Jones deposition -- even assuming that Monica Lewinsky
performed oral sex on him.

There still was the question of his contact with Ms. Lewinsky's breasts
and genitalia, which the President conceded would fall within the Jones
definition of sexual relations. The President denied that he had engaged in such
activity and said, in effect, that Monica Lewinsky was lying:

Q: The question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval
Office area you touched her breasts would she by lying?

A: That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did not have
sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky and I'm staying on my former statement
about that. . . . My, my statement is that I did not have sexual
relations as defined by that.

The President elaborated that he considered kissing or touching breasts or
genitalia during sexual activity to be covered by the Jones definition,
but he denied that he had ever engaged in such conduct with Ms. Lewinsky:

Q: So touching, in your view then and now -- the person being deposed
touching or kissing the breast of another person would fall within the
definition?

A: That's correct, sir.

Q: And you testified that you didn't have sexual relations with Monica
Lewinsky in the Jones deposition, under that definition, correct?

A: That's correct, sir.

Q: If the person being deposed touched the genitalia of another person, would
that be -- and with the intent to arouse the sexual desire, arouse or gratify,
as defined in definition (1), would that be, under your understanding then and
now --

A: Yes, sir.

Q: -- sexual relations.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Yes it would?

A: Yes it would. If you had a direct contact with any of these places in the
body, if you had direct contact with intent to arouse or gratify, that would
fall within the definition.

Q: So you didn't do any of those three things --

A: You --

Q: -- with Monica Lewinsky.

A: You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual
relations, as I understood this term to be defined.

Q: Including touching her breast, kissing her breast, touching her
genitalia?

Third, the testimony of many of her friends, family members, and
counselors corroborate her testimony in important detail. Many testified that
Ms. Lewinsky had told them that the President had touched her breasts and
genitalia during sexual activity. These statements were made well before the
President's grand jury testimony rendered these precise details important.
Ms. Lewinsky had no motive to lie to these individuals (and obviously not
to counselors). Indeed, she pointed out to many of them that she was upset that
sexual intercourse had not occurred, an unlikely admission if she were
exaggerating the sexual aspects of their relationship.

Fourth, a computer file obtained from Ms. Lewinsky's home
computer contained a draft letter that referred in one place to their sexual
relationship. The draft explicitly refers to "watching your mouth on my breast"
and implicitly refers to direct contact with Ms. Lewinsky's genitalia.(110)
This draft letter further corroborates Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and
indicates that the President's grand jury testimony is false.

Fifth, as noted above, the President's "hands-off" scenario -- in
which he would have received oral sex on nine occasions from Ms. Lewinsky
but never made direct contact with Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia -- is
implausible. As Ms. Lewinsky herself testified, it suggests that she and
the President had some kind of "service contract -- that all I did was perform
oral sex on him and that that's all this relationship was."(111)
But as the above descriptions and the Narrative explain, the nature of the
relationship, including the sexual relationship, was far more than that.

Sixth, in the grand jury, the President had a motive to lie by denying
he had fondled Ms. Lewinsky in intimate ways. The President clearly sought
to deny any acts that would show that he committed perjury in his civil case
(implying that the President understood how seriously the public and the courts
would view perjury in a civil case). To do that, the President had to deny
touching Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia -- no matter how implausible
his testimony to that effect might be.

Seventh, the President refused to answer specific questions before the
grand jury about what activity he did engage in (as opposed to what activity he
did not engage in) -- even though at the Jones deposition only
seven months before, his attorney stated that he was willing to answer specific
questions when there was a sufficient factual predicate.(112)
The President's failure in the grand jury to answer specific follow-up questions
suggests that he could not supply responses in a consistent or credible manner.

3. Finally, the President made a third false statement to the grand jury
about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He contended that the
intimate contact did not begin until 1996. Ms. Lewinsky has testified that
it began November 15, 1995, during the government shutdown -- testimony
corroborated by statements she made to friends at the time.(113) A
White House photograph of the evening shows the President and Ms. Lewinsky
eating pizza.(114)
White House records show that Ms. Lewinsky did not depart the White House
until 12:18 a.m. and show that the President was in the Oval Office area until
12:35 a.m.(115)

Ms. Lewinsky was still an intern when she says the President
began receiving oral sex from her, whereas she was a full-time employee by the
time that the President admits they began an "inappropriate intimate"
relationship. The motive for the President to make a false statement about the
date on which the sexual relationship started appears to have been that the
President was unwilling to admit sexual activity with a young 22-year-old White
House intern in the Oval Office area. Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky testified
that, at that first encounter, the President tugged at her intern pass. He said
that "this" may be a problem; Ms. Lewinsky interpreted that statement to reflect
his awareness that there would be a problem with her obtaining access to the
West Wing.(116)

For all these reasons, there is substantial and credible information that the
President lied to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Monica
Lewinsky.(117)

The President also was asked whether he had ever been alone with
Ms. Lewinsky in the hallway that runs from the Oval Office, past the study,
to the dining room and kitchen area.(121)

Q: At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone in the hallway between the
Oval Office and this kitchen area?

WJC: I don't believe so, unless we were walking back to the back
dining room with the pizza.(122) I
just, I don't remember. I don't believe we were alone in the hallway,
no.(123)

The President was then asked about any times he may have been alone in any
room with Ms. Lewinsky:

Q: At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any
room of the White House?

WJC: I think I testified to that earlier. I think that there is a, it is --
I have no specific recollection, but it seems to me that she was on duty
on a couple of occasions working for the legislative affairs office and
brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend. That's -- I have a
general memory of that.(124)

Second, Betty Currie testified that President Clinton and
Ms. Lewinsky were alone together in the Oval Office area a number of
times.(132)
She specifically remembered three occasions when the President and
Ms. Lewinsky were alone together: February 28, 1997,(133)
early December 1997,(134)
and December 28, 1997.(135)

Third, six current or former members of the Secret Service testified
that the President and Ms. Lewinsky were alone in the Oval Office area --
Robert Ferguson,(136)
Lewis Fox,(137)
William Bordley,(138)
Nelson Garabito,(139)
Gary Byrne,(140)
and John Muskett.(141)

Fourth, White House steward Glen Maes testified that on some weekend
day after Christmas 1997,(142)
the President came out of the Oval Office, saw Ms. Lewinsky with a gift,
and escorted her into the Oval Office. Mr. Maes testified that the
President and Ms. Lewinsky were alone together for approximately eight
minutes, and then Ms. Lewinsky left.(143)

The President acknowledged being alone with Ms. Lewinsky on multiple
occasions, although he could not pinpoint the precise number.(145)
Perhaps most important, the President admitted that he was alone with
Ms. Lewinsky on December 28, 1997,(146)less than three weeks before his deposition in the Jones case. Indeed, he
acknowledged that he would have to have been an "exhibitionist" for him not to
have been alone with Ms. Lewinsky when they were having sexual
encounters.(147)

Third, the President suggested at his civil deposition that he had no
specific recollection of being alone with Ms. Lewinsky in the Oval Office,
but had a general recollection that Ms. Lewinsky may have brought him
"papers to sign" on certain occasions when she worked at the Legislative Affairs
Office.(149)
This statement was false. Ms. Lewinsky did not bring him papers for
official purposes. To the contrary, "bringing papers" was one of the sham "cover
stories" that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had originally crafted to
conceal their sexual relationship.(150)
The fact that the President resorted to a previously designed cover story when
testifying under oath at the Jones deposition confirms that
he made these false denials in a calculated manner with the intent and knowledge
that they were false.

The President had an obvious motive to lie in this respect. He knew that it
would appear odd for a President to have been alone with a female intern or
low-level staffer on so many occasions. Such an admission might persuade Judge
Wright to deny any motion by Ms. Lewinsky to quash her deposition subpoena.
It also might prompt Ms. Jones's attorneys to oppose efforts by
Ms. Lewinsky not to be deposed and to ask specific questions of
Ms. Lewinsky about the times she was alone with the President. It also
might raise questions publicly if and when the President's deposition became
public; at least parts of the deposition were likely to become public at trial,
if not at the summary judgment stage.

Because lying about their sexual relationship was insufficient to avoid
raising further questions, the President also lied about being alone with
Ms. Lewinsky -- or at least feigned lack of memory as to specific
occurrences.(151)

(ii) The evidence also demonstrates that the President gave
Ms. Lewinsky a hat pin as a belated Christmas gift on February 28, 1997.(156)
The President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed the hatpin on December 28, 1997,
after Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena calling for her to produce all gifts
from the President, including any hat pins.(157)
In her meeting with the President on December 28, 1997, according to
Ms. Lewinsky, "I mentioned that I had been concerned about the hat pin
being on the subpoena and he said that that had sort of concerned him also and
asked me if I had told anyone that he had given me this hat pin and I said
no."(158)
The President's secretary Betty Currie also testified that she had previously
discussed the hat pin with the President.(159)

(iii) Ms. Lewinsky testified that the President gave her additional
gifts over the course of their relationship, such as a brooch,(160)
the book Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman,(161)
an Annie Lennox compact disk,(162)
and a cigar.(163)

a. Ms. Lewinsky testified before the grand jury that she gave the
President six neckties.(166)

b. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she gave the President a pair of
sunglasses on approximately October 22, 1997.(167)
The President's attorney, David E. Kendall, stated in a letter on March 16,
1998: "We believe that Ms. Lewinsky might have given the President a few
additional items, such as ties and a pair of sunglasses, but we have not been
able to locate these items."(168)

c. On November 13, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky gave the President an antique
paperweight that depicted the White House.(169)
Ms. Lewinsky testified that on December 6, 1997, and possibly again on December
28, 1997, she saw this paperweight in the dining room, where the President keeps
many items of political memorabilia.(170)
The President turned over the paperweight to the OIC in response to a second
subpoena calling for it.(171)

During the criminal investigation, the President has produced seven gifts
that Ms. Lewinsky gave him. He testified to the grand jury that
Ms. Lewinsky had given him "a tie, a coffee cup, a number of other
things I had."(184)
In addition, the President acknowledged that "there were some things that had
been in my possession that I no longer had, I believe."(185)

Betty Currie testified that Ms. Lewinsky sent a number of packages for
the President -- six or eight, she estimated.(186)
Ms. Lewinsky also sometimes dropped parcels off or had family members do
so.(187)
When the packages came to the White House, Ms. Currie would leave the
packages from Ms. Lewinsky in the President's box outside the Oval Office,
and "[h]e would pick [them] up."(188)
To the best of her knowledge, such parcels always reached the President: "The
President got everything anyone sent him."(189)
Ms. Currie testified that to her knowledge, no one delivered packages or
something as many times as Ms. Lewinsky did.(190)

A truthful answer to the questions about gifts at the Jones deposition
would have raised further questions about the President's relationship with
Monica Lewinsky. The number itself would raise questions about the relationship
and prompt further questions about specific gifts; some of the specific gifts
(such as Vox and Leaves of Grass) would raise questions
whether the relationship was sexual and whether the President had lied in
denying that their relationship was sexual. Ms. Lewinsky explained the
point: Had they admitted the gifts, it would "at least prompt [the Jones
attorneys] to want to question me about what kind of friendship I had with the
President and they would want to speculate and they'd leak it and my name would
be trashed and he [the President] would be in trouble."(193)

A truthful answer about the gifts to Ms. Lewinsky also would have raised
the question of where they were. Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed for
gifts, as the President knew. The President knew also from his conversation with
Ms. Lewinsky on December 28, 1997 (an issue discussed more fully in Ground
V) that Ms. Lewinsky would not produce all of the gifts she had received
from the President.

For those reasons, the President had a clear motive when testifying under
oath to lie about the gifts.

b. December 28, 1997, Visit. Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed on
December 19. At her request, Vernon Jordan told the President that
Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed.(199)
She then met with President Clinton nine days later on December 28, less than
three weeks before the President was deposed.

According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President discussed the
Jones lawsuit and how the Jones lawyers might have learned about
her. Ms. Lewinsky said they also discussed the subpoena's requirement that
she produce gifts she had received from the President, including specifically a
"hat pin."(200)

Because of their mutual concern about the subpoena, Ms. Lewinsky
testified that she asked the President if she should put the gifts away
somewhere.(201)
The President responded "I don't know" or "Hmm" or "Let me think about it."(202)
Later that day, according to Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie called to pick
up the gifts, which she then stored under her bed in her home in Virginia.(203)
(This issue will be discussed more fully in Ground V below.)

c. January 5, 1998, Call. Ms. Lewinsky also testified that she
spoke to the President by telephone on January 5, 1998, and they continued to
discuss her role in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky expressed concern that,
if she were deposed, she might have a difficult time explaining the
circumstances of her transfer from the White House to the Pentagon. According to
Ms. Lewinsky, the President suggested that she answer by explaining that
people in the White House Legislative Affairs office had helped her get the
Pentagon job -- which Ms. Lewinsky understood to be a misleading answer
because she in fact had been transferred as a result of her being around the
Oval Office too much.(204)

WJC: . . . I remember a conversation about the possibility of
her testifying. I believe it must have occurred on the 28th.

She mentioned to me that she did not want to testify. So, that's how it came
up. Not in the context of, I heard you have a subpoena, let's talk about it.

She raised the issue with me in the context of her desire to avoid
testifying, which I certainly understood; not only because there were some
embarrassing facts about our relationship that were inappropriate, but also
because a whole lot of innocent people were being traumatized and dragged
through the mud by these Jones lawyers with their dragnet
strategy. . . .(206)

* * * *

Q: . . . Do you agree that she was upset about being subpoenaed?

WJC: Oh, yes, sir, she was upset. She -- well, she-- we -- she didn't -- we
didn't talk about a subpoena. But she was upset. She said, I don't want to
testify; I know nothing about this; I certainly know nothing about sexual
harassment; why do they want me to testify. And I explained to her why
they were doing this, and why all these women were on these lists, people that
they knew good and well had nothing to do with any sexual harassment.(207)

Vernon Jordan testified that he had told the President about the subpoena on
December 19, 1997, after he had talked to Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Lewinsky
confirmed that Mr. Jordan had told her on December 22, 1997, that he
(Mr. Jordan) had told the President of her subpoena.(210)

When he testified to the grand jury, the President stated that in his
conversation with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28, 1997, "my recollection is
I knew by then, of course, that she had gotten a subpoena. And I knew
that she was, therefore, . . . slated to testify."(211)

Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had two conversations
after she was subpoenaed: the December 28, 1997, meeting and a January 5, 1998,
phone conversation.(212)

Once the discovery process in the Jones case became an issue
(particularly after the Supreme Court's unanimous decision on May 27, 1997, that
ordered the case to go forward), their continuing efforts to conceal the
relationship took on added legal significance. The risks to the President of
disclosure of the relationship dramatically increased.

An effort to obstruct justice by withholding the truth from the legal process
-- whether by lying under oath, concealing documents, or improperly influencing
a witness's testimony -- is a federal crime.(214)
There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton engaged in
such efforts to prevent the truth of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky from
being revealed in the Jones case.

On December 19, 1997, Monica Lewinsky was served with a subpoena in
connection with the Jones v. Clinton litigation. The subpoena
required her to testify at a deposition on January 23, 1998.(217)
The subpoena also required Ms. Lewinsky to produce "each and every gift
including, but not limited to, any and all dresses, accessories, and jewelry,
and/or hat pins given to you by, or on behalf of, Defendant Clinton."(218)
After being served with the subpoena, Ms. Lewinsky became concerned because
the list of gifts included the hat pin, which "screamed out at me because that
was the first gift that the President had given me."(219)

Later that same day, December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky met with Vernon
Jordan and told him of her concern about the gifts, including the hat pin.(220)
During that meeting, Ms. Lewinsky asked Mr. Jordan to inform the
President that she had been subpoenaed.(221)
Mr. Jordan acknowledged that Ms. Lewinsky "was concerned about the
subpoena and I think for her the subpoena ipso facto meant trouble."(222)

Shortly after Christmas, Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie and said
that the President had mentioned that he had presents for her.(223)
Ms. Currie called back and told her to come to the White House at 8:30 a.m.
on Sunday, December 28, 1997.(224)
On December 28, Ms. Lewinsky and the President met in the Oval Office.
According to her testimony, Ms. Lewinsky "mentioned that [she] had been
concerned about the hat pin being on the subpoena and he said that that had sort
of concerned him also and asked [her] if [she] had told anyone that he had given
[her] this hat pin and [she] said no."(225)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President discussed the possibility
of moving some of the gifts out of her possession:

[A]t some point I said to him, "Well, you know, should I -- maybe I should
put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe
Betty." And he sort of said -- I think he responded, "I don't know" or "Let me
think about that." And [we] left that topic.(226)

Ms. Lewinsky testified that she was never under the impression from anything
the President said that she should turn over to Ms. Jones's attorneys all the
gifts that he had given her.(227)

On the 28th, the President also gave Ms. Lewinsky several Christmas
gifts. When asked why the President gave her more gifts on December 28 when he
understood she was under an obligation to produce gifts in response to the
subpoena, Ms. Lewinsky stated:

You know, I can't answer what [the President] was thinking, but to me, it was
-- there was never a question in my mind and I -- from everything he said to
me, I never questioned him, that we were never going to do anything but keep
this private, so that meant deny it and that meant do -- take whatever
appropriate steps needed to be taken, you know, for that to happen
. . . . So by turning over all these gifts, it would at least
prompt [the Jones attorneys] to want to question me about what kind of
friendship I had with the President and they would want to speculate and they'd
leak it and my name would be trashed and he [the President] would be in
trouble.(228)

Ms. Lewinsky testified that a few hours after their meeting on December
28, 1997, Ms. Currie called her.(229)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie said: "'I understand you have
something to give me.' Or, 'The President said you have something to give me' --
[Something] [a]long those lines."(230)
In her February 1 handwritten statement to the OIC, which Ms. Lewinsky has
testified was truthful, she stated: "Ms. Currie called Ms. L later
that afternoon a[nd] said that the Pres. had told her [that] Ms. L
wanted her to hold onto something for her. Ms. L boxed up most of the gifts
she had received and gave them to Ms. Currie."(231)

Ms. Lewinsky testified that she understood that Ms. Currie was
referring to gifts from the President when she mentioned "something for me."(232)
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she was not surprised to receive the call,
given her earlier discussion with the President.(233)

Ms. Currie testified that Ms. Lewinsky, not Ms. Currie, placed
the call and raised the subject of transferring the gifts. In Ms. Currie's
account, Ms. Lewinsky said that she (Ms. Lewinsky) was uncomfortable
retaining the gifts herself because "people were asking questions about the
stuff she had gotten."(234)
Ms. Currie also testified that she did not remember the President telling
her that Ms. Lewinsky wanted her to hold some items, and she did not
remember later telling the President that she was holding the gifts for
Ms. Lewinsky.(235)
When asked if a contrary statement by Ms. Lewinsky -- indicating that
Ms. Currie had in fact spoken to the President about the gift transfer --
would be false, Ms. Currie replied: "Then she may remember better than
I. I don't remember."(236)

According to both Ms. Currie and Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie
drove to Ms. Lewinsky's home later on December 28 for only the second time
in her life.(237)
Ms. Lewinsky gave her a sealed box that contained several gifts
Ms. Lewinsky had received from the President, including the hat pin and one
of the gifts he had given her that very morning.(238)
Ms. Lewinsky wrote "Please do not throw away" on the box.(239)
Ms. Currie then took the box and placed it in her home under her bed.
Ms. Currie understood that the box contained gifts from the President,
although she did not know the specific contents.(240)
Ms. Lewinsky said that Ms. Currie did not seem at all confused when Ms. Lewinsky
handed over the box of gifts(241)
and never asked about the contents.(242)

When Ms. Currie later produced the box to the OIC in response to a
subpoena, the box contained a hat pin, two brooches, an inscribed official copy
of the 1996 State of the Union Address, a photograph of the President in the
Oval Office, an inscribed photograph of the President and Ms. Lewinsky, a
sun dress, two t-shirts, and a baseball cap with a Black Dog logo.(243)

The President denied that he had asked Betty Currie to pick up a box of gifts
from Ms. Lewinsky:

Q: After you gave her the gifts on December 28th [1997], did you speak with
your secretary, Ms. Currie, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that were
some compilation of gifts that Ms. Lewinsky would have --

The testimony conflicts as to what happened when Ms. Lewinsky raised the
subject of gifts with the President and what happened later that day. The
President testified that he told Ms. Lewinsky that "you have to give them
whatever you have."(248)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she raised the possibility of hiding the gifts,
and the President offered a somewhat neutral response.

Ms. Lewinsky testified that Betty Currie called her to retrieve the
gifts soon after Ms. Lewinsky's conversation with the President.
Ms. Currie says that she believes that Ms. Lewinsky called her about
the gifts, but she says she has a dim memory of the events.(249)

The central factual question is whether the President orchestrated or
approved the concealment of the gifts. The reasonable inference from the
evidence is that he did.

1. The witnesses disagree about whether Ms. Currie called
Ms. Lewinsky or Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie. That issue is
relevant because Ms. Currie would not have called Ms. Lewinsky about
the gifts unless the President directed her to do so. Indeed, because she did
not know of the gifts issue, there is no other way that Ms. Currie could
have known to make such a call unless the President told her to do so.

Ms. Lewinsky's testimony on the issue is consistent and unequivocal. In
her February 1, 1998, handwritten statement, she wrote: "Ms. Currie called
Ms. L later that afternoon a[nd] said that the Pres. had told her
Ms. L wanted her to hold onto something for her."(250)
In her grand jury testimony, Ms. Lewinsky said that several hours after she
left the White House, Ms. Currie called and said something along the lines
of "The President said you have something to give me."(251)

Ms. Currie's testimony is contrary but less clear. Ms. Currie has
stated that Ms. Lewinsky called her, but her memory of the conversation, in
contrast to Ms. Lewinsky's, generally has been hazy and uncertain. As to
whether she had talked to the President about the gifts, for example,
Ms. Currie initially said she had not, but then said that Ms. Lewinsky
(who said that Ms. Currie had talked to the President) "may remember
better than I. I don't remember."(252)

Ms. Lewinsky's testimony makes more sense than Ms. Currie's
testimony. First, Ms. Lewinsky stated that if Ms. Currie had not
called, Ms. Lewinsky simply would have kept the gifts (and perhaps thrown
them away).(253)
She would not have produced the gifts to Ms. Jones's attorneys. And she
would not have given them to a friend or mother because she did not want
to get anyone else involved.(254)
She was not looking for someone else to take them.(255)

Also, Ms. Currie drove to Ms. Lewinsky's house to pick up the
gifts. That was only the second time that Ms. Currie had ever gone there.(256)
More generally, the person making the extra effort (in this case,
Ms. Currie) is ordinarily the person requesting the favor.

2. Even if Ms. Lewinsky is mistaken and she did call Ms. Currie
first, the evidence still leads clearly to the conclusion that the President
orchestrated this transfer.

First, it is unlikely that Ms. Lewinsky would have involved
Ms. Currie in this matter unless the President had indicated his assent
when Ms. Lewinsky raised the issue with him earlier in the day. Indeed,
there is a logical flaw in the President's story: If the President had truly
suggested that Ms. Lewinsky produce the gifts to Ms. Jones's
attorneys, Ms. Lewinsky obviously would not have turned around and called
the President's personal secretary to give the gifts to her, in direct
contravention of the President's instruction.

Second, it also is unlikely that Ms. Currie would have driven to
Ms. Lewinsky's home, retrieved the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, and stored
them under her bed at home without being asked to do so by the President -- at
least, without checking with him. It would have been out of character for
Ms. Currie to have taken such an action without the President's approval.
For example, when helping Ms. Lewinsky in her job search, Ms. Currie
said that she told the President of her plans and agreed that she "would not
have tried to get Ms. Lewinsky a job if . . . [I] thought the
President didn't want [me] to."(257)

3. Even if the President did not orchestrate the transfer to
Ms. Currie, there is still substantial evidence that he encouraged the
concealment and non-production of the gifts by Ms. Lewinsky.
The President "hoped that this relationship would never become public."(258)
The President gave Ms. Lewinsky new gifts on December 28, 1997. Given his
desire to conceal the relationship, it makes no sense that the President would
have given Ms. Lewinsky more gifts on the 28th unless he and
Ms. Lewinsky understood that she would not produce all of her gifts
in response to her subpoena.

4. The President had a motive to orchestrate the concealment of gifts,
whether accomplished through Ms. Currie indirectly or through
Ms. Lewinsky directly. The President knew that Ms. Lewinsky was
concerned about the subpoena. Both of them were concerned that the gifts might
raise questions about the relationship. By confirming that the gifts would not
be produced, the President ensured that these questions would not arise.

The concealment of the gifts also ensured that the President could provide
false and misleading statements about the gifts under oath at his deposition (as
he did) without being concerned that Ms. Lewinsky might have produced gifts
that the President was denying (or minimizing the number of). If
Ms. Lewinsky had produced to Ms. Jones's attorneys all of the gifts
that she had given to Ms. Currie, then the President could not plausibly
have said "I don't recall" in response to the question, "[H]ave you ever given
any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?" He could not have said, "I don't remember a
specific gift."(259)
Indeed, unless the President knew that Ms. Lewinsky had not complied with the
subpoena, it is unlikely he would have risked lying about the number and nature
of the gifts he had given her.

In analyzing the evidence on this issue, it also bears mention that President
Clinton likely operated no differently with respect to the gifts than he did
with respect to testimony. It is clear that he lied under oath and that
Ms. Lewinsky filed a false affidavit after the President suggested she file
an affidavit. So there is little reason that he would not have attempted to
ensure (whether directly or subtly) that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts as
a corollary to their mutual lies under oath. (Also, it was the President's
pattern to use Ms. Currie as an intermediary in dealing with
Ms. Lewinsky.(260))

The President's apparent response to all of this is that Ms. Lewinsky
on her own contacted Ms. Currie and involved her in this endeavor to
hide subpoenaed evidence, and that Ms. Currie complied without checking
with the President. Based on the testimony and behavior of both Ms. Currie
and Ms. Lewinsky, those inferences fall outside the range of reasonable
possibility.

There is substantial and credible information, therefore, that the President
endeavored to obstruct justice by participating in the concealment of subpoenaed
evidence.

On January 5, in the course of discussing her affidavit and possible
testimony in a phone conversation with the President, Ms. Lewinsky says she
told the President, "I shouldn't have written some of those things in the
note."(264)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President said that he agreed and that she
should not write those kinds of things on paper.(265)

On January 15, President Clinton served responses to Ms. Jones's second
set of document requests, which again asked for documents that related to
"Monica Lewisky." The President stated that he had "no documents" responsive to
this request.(266)

Ms. Lewinsky understood the President's advice to mean that she might be
able to execute an affidavit that would not disclose the true nature of their
relationship. In order "to prevent me from being deposed," she said she would
need an affidavit that "could range from anywhere between maybe just somehow
mentioning, you know, innocuous things or going as far as maybe having to deny
any kind of relationship."(274)

Ms. Lewinsky has stated that the President never explicitly told
her to lie. Instead, as she explained, they both understood from their
conversations that they would continue their pattern of covering up and lying
about the relationship. In that regard, the President never said they must now
tell the truth under oath; to the contrary, as Ms. Lewinsky stated:

[I]t wasn't as if the President called me and said, "You know, Monica, you're
on the witness list, this is going to be really hard for us, we're going to have
to tell the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire world about what
we've done," which I would have fought him on probably. That was different.
And by him not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew what that
meant.(275)

Ms. Jones's lawyers served Ms. Lewinsky with a subpoena on December
19, 1997. Ms. Lewinsky contacted Vernon Jordan, who in turn put her in
contact with attorney Frank Carter.(276)
Based on the information that Ms. Lewinsky provided, Mr. Carter
prepared an affidavit which stated: "I have never had a sexual relationship with
the President."(277)

After Mr. Carter drafted the affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky spoke to the
President by phone on January 5th.(278)
She asked the President if he wanted to see the draft affidavit. According to
Ms. Lewinsky, the President replied that he did not need to see it because
he had already "seen 15 others."(279)

Mr. Jordan confirmed that President Clinton knew that Ms. Lewinsky
planned to execute an affidavit denying a sexual relationship.(280)
Mr. Jordan further testified that he informed President Clinton when
Ms. Lewinsky signed the affidavit.(281)
Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit was sent to the federal court in Arkansas on
January 16, 1998 -- the day before the President's deposition -- as part of her
motion to quash the deposition subpoena.

Two days before the President's deposition, his lawyer, Robert Bennett,
obtained a copy of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit from Mr. Carter.(282)
At the President's deposition, Ms. Jones's counsel asked questions about
the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Bennett objected
to the "innuendo" of the questions, noting that Ms. Lewinsky had signed an
affidavit denying a sexual relationship, which according to Mr. Bennett,
indicated that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape
or form."(283)
Mr. Bennett said that the President was "fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's
affidavit."(284)
Mr. Bennett affirmatively used the affidavit in an effort to cut off
questioning. The President said nothing -- even though, as he knew, the
affidavit was false. Judge Wright overruled the objection and allowed the
questioning to continue.

Later, Mr. Bennett read Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a "sexual
relationship" to the President and asked him: "Is that a true and accurate
statement as far as you know it?" The President answered: "That is absolutely
true."(285)

When questioned about his phone conversation with Ms. Lewinsky on
December 17, 1997 -- during which the President suggested filing an affidavit --
the President testified that he did not remember exactly what he had said.(287)
The President also maintained that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, as it
ultimately was filed denying a "sexual relationship," was not necessarily
inaccurate. He testified that, depending on Ms. Lewinsky's state of mind,
her statement denying a sexual relationship could have been true.

I believe at the time that she filled out this affidavit, if she believed
that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse,
then this is accurate. And I believe that is the definition that most ordinary
Americans would give it.(288)

At his grand jury appearance, the President also was asked about his
counsel's statement to Judge Wright that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a
"sexual relationship" was equivalent to saying "there is absolutely no sex of
any kind in any manner, shape or form" with President Clinton. Given the
President's interpretation of the term "sexual relationship" to require sexual
intercourse, the President was asked how he lawfully could have sat silent while
his attorney -- in the President's presence and on his behalf -- made a false
statement to a United States District Judge in an effort to forestall further
questioning. The President offered several responses.

First, the President maintained that he was not paying "much attention" when
Mr. Bennett said that there is "absolutely no sex of any kind" between the
President and Ms. Lewinsky."(289)
The President further stated: "That moment, that whole argument just passed me
by. I was a witness."(290)
The President's explanation is difficult to reconcile with the videotape of the
deposition, which shows that the President was looking in Mr. Bennett's
direction when his counsel made this statement.

Alternatively, the President contended that when Mr. Bennett said that
"there is absolutely no sex of any kind," Mr. Bennett was speaking
only in the present tense and thus was making a completely true statement. The
President further stated: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is'
is,"(291)
and that "actually, in the present tense that is an accurate statement."(292)
Before the grand jury, counsel for the OIC then asked the President: "Do you
mean today that because you were not engaging in sexual activity with
Ms. Lewinsky during the deposition that the statement of Mr. Bennett
might be literally true?"(293)
The President responded: "No, sir. I mean that at the time of the deposition, it
had been -- that was well beyond any point of improper contact between me and
Ms. Lewinsky."(294)
The President's suggestion that he might have engaged in such a detailed parsing
of the words at his deposition is at odds with his assertion that the "whole
argument passed me by."

Finally, the President took issue with the notion that he had any duty to
prevent his attorney from making a false statement to Judge Wright:
"Mr. Bennett was representing me. I wasn't representing him."(295)
That is a truism. Yet when a witness is knowingly responsible for a misstatement
of fact to a federal judge that misleads the Court and attempts to prevent
questioning on a relevant subject, that conduct rises to the level of an
obstruction of justice.

While employed at the White House, Ms. Lewinsky used this cover story on
several occasions.(297)
It worked: Several Secret Service officers testified that they understood that
Ms. Lewinsky was at the Oval Office to deliver or to pick up papers.(298)
In fact, however, Ms. Lewinsky stated that her White House job never
required her to deliver papers or obtain the President's signature, although she
carried papers as a prop.(299)

After she was transferred to the Pentagon, Ms. Lewinsky testified that
she and the President formulated a second "cover story": that Ms. Lewinsky
was going to the White House to visit Betty Currie rather than the President.
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President discussed how "Betty
always needed to be the one to clear me in so that, you know, I could always say
I was coming to see Betty."(300)
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she met with the President privately on ten
occasions after she left her job at the White House.(301)
Ms. Currie signed her in for each of those private visits.(302)

Ms. Lewinsky has stated that her true purpose in visiting the White
House on these occasions was to see President Clinton, not Ms. Currie.(303)
President Clinton agreed that "just about every time" that Ms. Lewinsky
came to see Ms. Currie when he was there, Ms. Lewinsky saw him as
well.(304)

Ms. Lewinsky testified that President Clinton encouraged her to continue
to use the cover stories to conceal their relationship after her name
appeared on the witness list in the Jones case. In her early-morning
phone conversation with President Clinton on December 17, 1997 -- the same
conversation in which the President told her that her name was on the witness
list and suggested that she file an affidavit if subpoenaed(305)
-- Ms. Lewinsky discussed cover stories with the President:

ML: At some point in the conversation, and I don't know if it was before or
after the subject of the affidavit came up, he sort of said, "You know, you
can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me
letters." Which I understood was really a reminder of things that we had
discussed before.

Q: So when you say things you had discussed, sort of ruses that you had
developed.

ML: Right. I mean, this was -- this was something that -- that was instantly
familiar to me.

Q: Right.

ML: And I knew exactly what he meant.

Q: Had you talked with him earlier about these false explanations about what
you were doing visiting him on several occasions?

ML: Several occasions throughout the entire relationship. Yes. It was the
pattern of the relationship, to sort of conceal it.(306)

President Clinton used those same deceptive cover stories during his
deposition in the Jones case. In the civil deposition, when asked if he
had met with Ms. Lewinsky "several times" while she worked at the White
House, the President responded that he had seen her on two or three occasions
during the government shutdown, "and then when she worked at the White House, I
think there was one or two other times when she brought some documents to
me."(307)
When asked if he was ever alone with Ms. Lewinsky in the Oval Office, the
President stated:

[W]hen she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody
there on the weekends. . . . Sometimes they'd bring me things
on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it
off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. . . . It's
possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and
that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there, That's
possible.(308)

The pattern of devising cover stories in an effort to forestall an inquiry
into the relationship continued even after Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to
testify. On January 5, 1998, she met with her attorney, Frank Carter, and
discussed questions that she might be asked at a deposition. One of the
questions was how she had obtained her Pentagon job. Ms. Lewinsky worried
that if the Jones lawyers checked with the White House about the
transfer, some at the White House would say unflattering things about why she
had been terminated.(309)
Ms. Lewinsky spoke to President Clinton on the phone that evening and asked
for advice on how to answer the question. Ms. Lewinsky testified that the
President responded, "[Y]ou could always say that the people in
Legislative Affairs got it for you or helped you get it" -- a story that
Ms. Lewinsky stated was misleading because Ms. Lewinsky in fact had
been transferred because she was around the Oval Office too much.(310)
President Clinton knew the truth.

However, no doubt aware of the significance of the question, the President
testified that he did not remember whether he had discussed the cover stories
with Ms. Lewinsky during the December 17, 1997, conversation,(312)
or at any time after Ms. Lewinsky's name appeared on the
Jones witness list:

Q: Did you tell [Ms. Lewinsky] anytime in December something to that
effect: You know, you can always say that you were coming to see Betty or you
were bringing me letters? Did you say that, or anything like that, in December
'97 or January '98, to Monica Lewinsky?

WJC: Well, that's a very broad question. I do not recall saying anything like
that in connection with her testimony. I could tell you what I do
remember saying, if you want to know. But I don't -- we might have talked about
what to do in a nonlegal context at some point in the past, but I have no
specific memory of that conversation.

I do remember what I said to her about the possible testimony.

* * * *

Q: Did you say anything like [the cover stories] once you knew or thought she
might be a witness in the Jones case? Did you repeat the statement, or something
like it to her?

WJC: Well, again, I don't recall, and I don't recall whether I might have
done something like that, for example, if somebody says, what if the reporters
ask me this, that or the other thing. I can tell you this: In the context of
whether she could be a witness, I have a recollection that she asked me, well,
what do I do if I get called as a witness, and I said, you have to get a lawyer.
And that's all I said. And I never asked her to lie.

During the course of their relationship, the President and Ms. Lewinsky
also discussed and used cover stories to justify her presence in and around the
Oval Office area. The evidence indicates -- given Ms. Lewinsky's unambiguous
testimony and the President's lack of memory, as well as the fact that they both
planned to lie under oath -- that the President suggested the continued use of
the cover stories even after Ms. Lewinsky was named as a potential witness
in the Jones litigation. At no time did the President tell
Ms. Lewinsky to abandon these stories and to tell the truth about her
visits, nor did he ever indicate to her that she should tell the truth under
oath about the relationship. While the President testified that he could not
remember such conversations about the cover stories, he had repeated the
substance of the cover stories in his Jones deposition. The President's
use of false cover stories in testimony under oath in his Jones
deposition strongly corroborates Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that he suggested
them to her on December 17 as a means of avoiding disclosure of the truth of
their relationship.

On October 1, the President was served with interrogatories asking about his
sexual relationships with women other than Mrs. Clinton.(316)
On October 7, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky couriered a letter expressing
dissatisfaction with her job search to the President.(317)
In response, Ms. Lewinsky said she received a late-night call from
President Clinton on October 9, 1997. She said that the President told her he
would start helping her find a job in New York.(318)

The following Saturday, October 11, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky met with
President Clinton alone in the Oval Office dining room from 9:36 a.m. until
about 10:54 a.m. In that meeting, she furnished the President a list of New York
jobs in which she was interested.(319)
Ms. Lewinsky mentioned to the President that she would need a reference
from someone in the White House; the President said he would take care of it.(320)
Ms. Lewinsky also suggested to the President that Vernon Jordan might be
able to help her, and President Clinton agreed.(321)
Immediately after the meeting, President Clinton spoke with Mr. Jordan by
telephone.(322)

According to White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, at some time in the
summer or fall of 1997, President Clinton raised the subject of Monica Lewinsky
and stated that "she was unhappy where she was working and wanted to come back
and work at the OEOB [Old Executive Office Building]; and could we take a
look."(323)
Mr. Bowles referred the matter to Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta.(324)

Mr. Podesta said he asked Betty Currie to have Ms. Lewinsky call
him, but heard nothing until about October 1997, when Ms. Currie told him
that Ms. Lewinsky was looking for opportunities in New York.(325)
The Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, said that
Mr. Podesta told him that Ms. Currie had a friend looking for a
position in New York.(326)

According to Ms. Lewinsky, Ambassador Richardson called her on October
21, 1997,(327)
and interviewed her soon thereafter. She was then offered a position at the
UN.(328)
Ms. Lewinsky was unenthusiastic.(329)
During the latter part of October 1997, the President and Ms. Lewinsky
discussed enlisting Vernon Jordan to aid in pursuing private-sector
possibilities.(330)

On November 5, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky met Mr. Jordan in his law office.
Mr. Jordan told Ms. Lewinsky that she came "highly recommended."(331)
Ms. Lewinsky explained that she hoped to move to New York, and went over
her list of possible employers.(332)
Mr. Jordan telephoned President Clinton shortly after the meeting.(333)

Ms. Lewinsky had no contact with the President or Mr. Jordan for
another month.(334)
On December 5, 1997, however, the parties in the Jones case exchanged
witness lists. Ms. Jones's attorneys listed Ms. Lewinsky as a
potential witness. The President testified that he learned that
Ms. Lewinsky was on the list late in the day on December 6.(335)

The effort to obtain a job for Ms. Lewinsky then intensified. On
December 7, President Clinton met with Mr. Jordan at the White House.(336)
Ms. Lewinsky met with Mr. Jordan on December 11 to discuss specific
job contacts in New York. Mr. Jordan gave her the names of some of his
business contacts.(337)
He then made calls to contacts at MacAndrews & Forbes (the parent
corporation of Revlon), American Express, and Young & Rubicam.(338)

Mr. Jordan also telephoned President Clinton to keep him informed of the
efforts to help Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan testified that President
Clinton was aware that people were trying to get jobs for her, that Mr. Podesta
was trying to help her, that Bill Richardson was trying to help her, but that
she wanted to work in the private sector.(339)

On the same day of Ms. Lewinsky's meeting with Mr. Jordan, December
11, Judge Wright ordered President Clinton, over his objection, to answer
certain written interrogatories as part of the discovery process in
Jones. Those interrogatories required, among other things, the President
to identify any government employees since 1986 with whom he had engaged in
sexual relations (a term undefined for purposes of the interrogatory).(340)
On December 16, the President's attorneys received a request for production of
documents that mentioned Monica Lewinsky by name.

On December 17, 1997, according to Ms. Lewinsky, President Clinton
called her in the early morning and told her that she was on the witness list,
and they discussed their cover stories.(341)
On December 18 and December 23, she interviewed for jobs with New York-based
companies that had been contacted by Mr. Jordan.(342)
On December 19, Ms. Lewinsky was served with a deposition subpoena by
Ms. Jones's lawyers.(343)
On December 22, 1997, Mr. Jordan took her to her new attorney; she and
Mr. Jordan discussed the subpoena, the Jones case, and her job
search during the course of the ride.(344)

The President answered the "other women" interrogatory on December 23, 1997,
by declaring under oath: "None."(345)

On Sunday, December 28, 1997, Monica Lewinsky and the President met in the
Oval Office.(346)
During that meeting, the President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed both her move
to New York and her involvement in the Jones suit.(347)

On January 5, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky declined the United Nations offer.(348)
On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the affidavit denying the
relationship with President Clinton (she had talked on the phone to the
President on January 5 about it).(349)
Mr. Jordan informed the President of her action.(350)

The next day, on January 8, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky interviewed in New York
with MacAndrews & Forbes, a company recommended by Vernon Jordan. The
interview went poorly. Mr. Jordan then called Ronald Perelman, the Chairman
of the Board at MacAndrews & Forbes. Mr. Perelman said
Ms. Lewinsky should not worry, and that someone would call her back for
another interview. Mr. Jordan relayed this message to Ms. Lewinsky,
and someone called back that day.(351)

Ms. Lewinsky interviewed again the next morning, and a few hours later
received an informal offer for a position.(352)
She told Mr. Jordan of the offer, and Mr. Jordan then notified
President Clinton with the news: "Mission accomplished."(353)

On January 12, 1998, Ms. Jones's attorneys informed Judge Wright that
they might call Monica Lewinsky as a trial witness.(354)
Judge Wright stated that she would allow witnesses with whom the President had
worked, such as Ms. Lewinsky, to be trial witnesses.(355)

In a call on January 13, 1998, a Revlon employee formalized the job offer,
and asked Ms. Lewinsky to provide references.(356)
Either that day or the next, President Clinton told Erskine Bowles that
Ms. Lewinsky "had found a job in the . . . private sector, and
she had listed John Hilley as a reference, and could we see if he could
recommend her, if asked."(357)
Thereafter, Mr. Bowles took the President's request to Deputy Chief of
Staff John Podesta, who in turn spoke to Mr. Hilley about writing a letter
of recommendation. After speaking with Mr. Podesta, Mr. Hilley agreed
to write such a letter, but cautioned it would be a "generic" one.(358)
On January 14, at approximately 11:17 a.m., Ms. Lewinsky faxed her letter
of acceptance to Revlon and listed Mr. Hilley as a reference.(359)

On January 15, the President responded to the December 15 request for
production of documents relating to Monica Lewinsky by answering "none." On
January 16, Ms. Lewinsky's attorney sent to the District Court in the
Jones case her affidavit denying a "sexual relationship" with the
President.(360)
The next day, on January 17, the President was deposed and his attorney used her
affidavit as the President similarly denied a "sexual relationship."

When a party in a lawsuit (or
investigation) provides job or financial assistance to a witness, a question
arises as to possible witness tampering. The critical question centers on the
intent of the party providing the assistance. Direct evidence of that intent
often is unavailable. Indeed, in some cases, the witness receiving the job
assistance may not even know that the party providing the assistance was
motivated by a desire to stay on good terms with the witness during the pending
legal proceeding.(361)
Similarly, others who are enlisted in the party's effort to influence the
witness's testimony by providing job assistance may not be aware of the party's
motivation and intent.

One can draw inferences about the party's intent from circumstantial
evidence. In this case, the President assisted Ms. Lewinsky in her job
search in late 1997, at a time when she would have become a witness harmful to
him in the Jones case were she to testify truthfully. The
President did not act half-heartedly. His assistance led to the involvement of
the Ambassador to the United Nations, one of the country's leading business
figures (Mr. Perelman), and one of the country's leading attorneys (Vernon
Jordan).

The question, therefore, is whether the President's efforts in obtaining a
job for Ms. Lewinsky were to influence her testimony(362)
or simply to help an ex-intimate without concern for her testimony. Three key
facts are essential in analyzing his actions: (i) the chronology of events, (ii)
the fact that the President and Ms. Lewinsky both intended to lie
under oath about the relationship, and (iii) the fact that it was critical for
the President that Ms. Lewinsky lie under oath.

There is substantial and credible information that the President assisted Ms.
Lewinsky in her job search motivated at least in part by his desire to keep her
"on the team" in the Jones litigation.

The President later testified in more detail about conversations he may have
had with Mr. Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's role in the case:

Q: Excluding conversations that you may have had with Mr. Bennett or any
of your attorneys in this case, within the past two weeks has anyone reported to
you that they had had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky concerning this
lawsuit?

WJC: I don't believe so. I'm sorry, I just don't believe so.

* * * *

Q. Has it ever been reported to you that [Vernon Jordan] met with Monica
Lewinsky and talked about this case?

WJC: I knew that he met with her. I think Betty suggested that he meet with
her. Anyway, he met with her. I, I thought that he talked to her about
something else. I didn't know that -- I thought he had given her some advice
about her move to New York. Seems like that's what Betty said.(364)

On December 19, Ms. Lewinsky phoned Mr. Jordan and told him that
she had been subpoenaed in the Jones case.(367)
Following that call, Mr. Jordan telephoned the President to inform him
"that Monica Lewinsky was coming to see me, and that she had a subpoena"(368)
-- but the President was unavailable.(369)
Later that day, at 5:01 p.m., Mr. Jordan had a seven-minute telephone
conversation with the President:(370)

I said to the President, "Monica Lewinsky called me up. She's upset. She's
gotten a subpoena. She is coming to see me about this subpoena. I'm confident
that she needs a lawyer, and I will try to get her a lawyer."(371)

Later on December 19, after meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan
went to the White House and met with the President alone in the Residence.(372)
Mr. Jordan testified: "I told him that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed,
came to me with a subpoena."(373)
According to Mr. Jordan, the President "thanked me for my efforts to get
her a job and thanked me for getting her a lawyer."(374)

According to Mr. Jordan, on January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky showed
him a copy of her signed affidavit denying any sexual relationship with the
President.(375)
He testified that he told the President about the affidavit, probably in one of
his two logged calls to the White House that day:(376)

Q: [W]alk us through what exactly you would have said on the portion of the
conversation that related to Ms. Lewinsky and the affidavit.

VJ: Monica Lewinsky signed the affidavit.

* * * *

Q: [L]et's say if it was January 7th, or whenever it was that you informed
him that she signed the affidavit,(377)
is it accurate that based on the conversations you had with him already, you
didn't have to explain to him what the affidavit was?

VJ: I think that's a reasonable assumption.

Q: So that it would have made sense that you would have just said, "She
signed the affidavit," because both you and he knew what the affidavit was?

VJ: I think that's a reasonable assumption.

Q: All right. When you indicated to the President that she had signed the
affidavit, what, if anything, did he tell you?

VJ: I think he -- his judgment was consistent with mine that that was -- the
signing of the affidavit was consistent with the truth.(378)

Mr. Jordan testified that "I knew that the President was concerned about
the affidavit and whether or not it was signed. He was, obviously."(379)
When asked why he believed the President was concerned, Mr. Jordan
testified:

Here is a friend of his who is being called as a witness in another case and
with whom I had gotten a lawyer, I told him about that, and told him I was
looking for a job for her. He knew about all of that. And it was just a
matter of course that he would be concerned as to whether or not she had signed
an affidavit foreswearing what I told you the other day, that there was no
sexual relationship.(380)

Mr. Jordan summarized his contacts with the President about Monica
Lewinsky and her involvement in the Jones litigation as follows:

I made arrangements for a lawyer and I told the President that. When she
signed the affidavit, I told the President that the affidavit had been signed
and when Frank Carter told me that he had filed a motion to quash, as I did in
the course of everything else, I said to the President that I saw Frank Carter
and he had informed me that he was filing a motion to quash. It was as a simple
information flow, absent a substantive discussion about her defense, about which
I was not involved.(381)

The President himself testified in the grand jury that he talked to
Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the case. Despite his
earlier statements at the deposition, the President testified to the grand jury
that he had no reason to doubt that he had talked to Mr. Jordan about
Ms. Lewinsky's subpoena, her lawyer, and her affidavit.(382)

The President's motive for making false and misleading statements about this
subject in his civil deposition was straightforward. If the President admitted
that he had talked with Vernon Jordan both about Monica Lewinsky's involvement
in the Jones case and about her job, questions would inevitably
arise about whether Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and her future job were
connected. Such an admission by the President in his civil deposition likely
would have prompted Ms. Jones's attorneys to inquire further into the
subject. And such an admission in his deposition would have triggered public
scrutiny when the deposition became public.

At the time of his deposition, moreover, the President was aware of the
potential problems in admitting any possible link between those two subjects. A
criminal investigation and substantial public attention had focused in 1997 on
job assistance and payments made to Webster Hubbell in 1994. The jobs and money
paid to Mr. Hubbell by friends and contributors to the President had raised
serious questions about whether such assistance was designed to influence
Mr. Hubbell's testimony about Madison-related matters.(384)
Some of Mr. Hubbell's jobs, moreover, had been arranged by Vernon Jordan,
which was likely a further deterrent to the President raising both
Ms. Lewinsky's job and her affidavit in connection with Vernon
Jordan.

At the deposition, Judge Wright imposed a protective order that prevented the
parties from discussing their testimony with anyone else. "Before he leaves, I
want to remind him, as the witness in this matter, . . . that this
case is subject to a Protective Order regarding all discovery, . . .
[A]ll parties present, including . . . the witness are not to say
anything whatsoever about the questions they were asked, the substance of the
deposition, . . ., any details . . . ."(390)

Shortly after 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, January 17, 1998, two and a half hours
after he returned from the deposition, President Clinton called Ms. Currie
at home(393)
and asked her to come to the White House the next day.(394)
Ms. Currie testified that "[i]t's rare for [President Clinton] to ask me to
come in on Sunday."(395)

At about 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, January 18, Ms. Currie went to meet with
President Clinton at the White House. She told the grand jury:

He said that he had had his deposition yesterday, and they had asked several
questions about Monica Lewinsky. And I was a little shocked by that or --
(shrugging). And he said -- I don't know if he said -- I think he may have said,
"There are several things you may want to know," or "There are things -- " He
asked me some questions.(396)

According to Ms. Currie, the President then said to her in succession:(397)

"You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really
alone."(398)

Ms. Currie indicated that these remarks were "more like statements than
questions."(402)
Ms. Currie concluded that the President wanted her to agree with him.(403)
She based that conclusion on the way he made most of the statements and on his
demeanor.(404)
Ms. Currie also said that she felt the President made these remarks to see
her reaction.(405)

Ms. Currie said that she indicated her agreement with each of the
President's statements,(406)
although she knew that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had in fact been
alone in the Oval Office and in the President's study.(407)
Ms. Currie also knew that she could not or did not in fact hear or see the
President and Ms. Lewinsky while they were alone.(408)

In the context of this conversation, President Clinton appeared to be
"concerned," according to Ms. Currie.(409)

The President's concern over the questions asked at the civil deposition
about Ms. Lewinsky also manifested itself in substantial efforts to contact
Monica Lewinsky over the next two days. Shortly after her meeting with the
President, Ms. Currie made several attempts to contact Ms. Lewinsky.
Ms. Currie testified it was "possible" she did so at the President's
suggestion, and said "he may have asked me to call [Ms. Lewinsky] to see
what she knew or where she was or what was happening."(410)
Later that same night, at 11:01 p.m., the President again called Ms. Currie
at home.(411)
Ms. Currie could not recall the substance but suggested that the President
had called to ask whether she had spoken to Ms. Lewinsky.(412)
The next day, January 19, 1998, which was a holiday, Ms. Currie made seven
unsuccessful attempts to contact Monica Lewinsky, by pager, between 7:00 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m.(413)
The President called Ms. Currie at home twice, and Ms. Currie called
the President at the White House once that day.(414)

Later, the President stated that he was referring to a larger area than
simply the room where he and Ms. Lewinsky were located. He also testified
that his statements to Ms. Currie were intended to cover a limited range of
dates:

WJC: . . . . [W]hen I said, we were never alone, right, I
think I also asked her a number of other questions, because there were several
times, as I'm sure she would acknowledge, when I either asked her to be around.
I remember once in particular when I was talking with Ms. Lewinsky when I
asked Betty to be in the, actually, in the next room in the dining room, and, as
I testified earlier, once in her own office.

But I meant that she was always in the Oval Office complex, in that complex,
while Monica was there. And I believe that this was part of a series of
questions I asked her to try to quickly refresh my memory. So, I wasn't trying
to get her to say something that wasn't so. And, in fact, I think she would
recall that I told her to just relax, go in the grand jury and tell the truth
when she had been called as a witness.

Q: So, when you said to Mrs. Currie that, I was never alone with her, right,
you just meant that you and Ms. Lewinsky would be somewhere perhaps in the
Oval Office or many times in your back study, is that correct?

WJC: That's right. We were in the back study.

Q: And then --

WJC: Keep in mind, sir, I just want to make it -- I was talking about 1997. I
was never, ever trying to get Betty Currie to claim that on the occasions when
Monica Lewinsky was there when she wasn't anywhere around, that she was. I would
never have done that to her, and I don't think she thought about that. I don't
think she thought I was referring to that.

Q: Did you put a date restriction? Did you make it clear to Mrs. Currie that
you were only asking her whether you were never alone with her after 1997?

WJC: Well, I don't recall whether I did or not, but I assumed -- if I didn't,
I assumed she knew what I was talking about, because it was the point at
which Ms. Lewinsky was out of the White House and had to have someone WAVE
her in, in order to get in the White House. And I do not believe to this day
that I was -- in 1997, that she was ever there and that I ever saw her unless
Betty Currie was there. I don't believe she was.(417)

With respect to the word "alone," the President also stated that "it depends
on how you define alone" and "there were a lot of times when we were alone, but
I never really thought we were."(418)

The President was also asked about his specific statement to Betty Currie
that "you could see and hear everything." He testified that he was uncertain
what he intended by that comment:

Q: When you said to Mrs. Currie, you could see and hear everything, that
wasn't true either, was it, as far as you knew. You've already --
. . .

WJC: . . . My memory of that was that, that she had the ability to
hear what was going on if she came in the Oval Office from her office. And a lot
of times, you know, when I was in the Oval Office, she just had the door open to
her office. Then there was -- the door was never completely closed to the hall.
So I think there was -- I'm not entirely sure what I meant by that, but I
could have meant that she generally would be able to hear conversations, even if
she couldn't see them. And I think that's what I meant.(419)

The President then testified that when he made the comment to Ms. Currie
about her being able to hear everything, he again was referring to only a
limited period of time:

Q: . . . .you would not have engaged in those physically
intimate acts if you knew that Mrs. Currie could see or hear that, is that
correct?

WJC: That's correct. But keep in mind, sir, I was talking about 1997. That
occurred, to the -- and I believe that occurred only once in February of 1997. I
stopped it. I never should have started it, and I certainly shouldn't have
started it back after I resolved not to in 1996. And I was referring to 1997.

And I -- what -- as I say, I do not know -- her memory and mine may be
somewhat different. I do not know whether I was asking her about a particular
time when Monica was upset and I asked her to stand, stay back in the dining
area. Or whether I was, had reference to the fact that if she kept the door open
to the Oval Office, because it was always -- the door to the hallway was always
somewhat open, that she would always be able to hear something if anything went
on that was, you know, too loud, or whatever.

I do not know what I meant. I'm just trying to reconcile the two
statements as best I can, without being sure.(420)

The President was also asked about his comment to Ms. Currie that
Ms. Lewinsky had "come on" to him, but that he had "never touched her":

Q: . . . . [I]f [Ms. Currie] testified that you told her,
Monica came on to me and I never touched her, you did, in fact, of course, touch
Ms. Lewinsky, isn't that right, in a physically intimate way?

WJC: Now, I've testified about that. And that's one of those questions that I
believe is answered by the statement that I made.(421)

Q: What was your purpose in making these statements to Mrs. Currie, if it
weren't for the purpose to try to suggest to her what she should say if ever
asked?

WJC: Now, Mr. Bittman, I told you, the only thing I remember is when all
this stuff blew up, I was trying to figure out what the facts were. I was
trying to remember. I was trying to remember every time I had seen
Ms. Lewinsky.

. . . I knew this was all going to come out. . . . I
did not know [at the time] that the Office of Independent Counsel was involved.
And I was trying to get the facts and try to think of the best defense we
could construct in the face of what I thought was going to be a media
onslaught.(422)

Finally, the President was asked why he would have called Ms. Currie
into his office a few days after the Sunday meeting and repeated the statements
about Ms. Lewinsky to her. The President testified that although he would
not dispute Ms. Currie's testimony to the contrary, he did not remember
having a second conversation with her along these lines.(423)

In this case, the President lied to, among others, three current senior aides
-- John Podesta, Erskine Bowles, and Sidney Blumenthal -- and one former senior
aide, Harold Ickes. The President denied any kind of sexual relationship with
Monica Lewinsky; said that Ms. Lewinsky had made a sexual demand on him;
and denied multiple telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. The President,
by his own later admission, was aware that his aides were likely to convey the
President's version of events to the grand jury.

The President's aides took the President at his word when he made these
statements. Each aide then testified to the nature of the relationship between
Monica Lewinsky and the President based on those statements -- without knowing
that they were calculated falsehoods by the President designed to perpetuate the
false statements that the President made during his deposition in the
Jones case.

The aides' testimony provided the grand jury a false account of the
relationship between the President and Ms. Lewinsky. Their testimony thus
had the potential to affect the investigation -- including decisions by the OIC
and grand jury about how to conduct the investigation (for example, whether to
subpoena Secret Service agents) and whether to indict particular individuals.

John Podesta, Deputy Chief of Staff,(425)
testified that on several occasions shortly after the media first began
reporting the Lewinsky allegations, the President either denied having a
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky or otherwise minimized his involvement with
her.

Mr. Podesta described a meeting with the President, Chief of Staff
Erskine Bowles, and Deputy Chief of Staff Sylvia Matthews, in the morning of
January 21, 1998.(426)
During that meeting, the President stated: "Erskine, I want you to know that
this story is not true."(427)
Mr. Podesta further recalled that the President said "that he had not had a
sexual relationship with her, and that he never asked anybody to lie."(428)

Several days later, on January 23, 1998, the President more adamantly told
Mr. Podesta that he had not engaged in sex of any "kind, shape or manner"
with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Podesta recalled:

JP: [H]e said to me that he had never had sex with her, and that -- and that
he never asked -- you know, he repeated the denial, but he was extremely
explicit in saying he never had sex with her.

Q: How do you mean?

JP: Just what I said.

Q: Okay. Not explicit, in the sense that he got more specific than sex, than
the word "sex."

JP: Yes, he was more specific than that.

Q: Okay. Share that with us.

JP: Well, I think he said -- he said that -- there was some spate of, you
know, what sex acts were counted, and he said that he had never had sex with her
in any way whatsoever --

Later, possibly that same day,(430)
the President made a further statement to Mr. Podesta regarding his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Podesta testified that the
President "said to me that after [Monica] left [her job at the White House],
that when she had come by, she came by to see Betty, and that he -- when she was
there, either Betty was with them -- either that she was with Betty when he saw
her or that he saw her in the Oval Office with the door open and Betty was
around -- and Betty was out at her desk."(431)
The President relayed to Mr. Podesta one of the false "cover stories" that the
President and Ms. Lewinsky had agreed to use.

Both the President and Mr. Podesta knew that Mr. Podesta was likely
to be a witness in the ongoing grand jury criminal investigation.(432)
Nonetheless, Mr. Podesta recalled that the President "volunteered" to
provide information about Ms. Lewinsky to him(433)even though Mr. Podesta had not asked for these details.(434)

Mr. Podesta "believe[d]" the President, and testified that it was
important to him that the President denied the affair.(435)
Mr. Podesta repeated to the grand jury the false and misleading statements
that the President told him.

EB: And this was the day this huge story breaks. And the three of us walked
in together -- Sylvia Matthews, John Podesta, and me -- into the Oval Office,
and the President was standing behind his desk.

Q: About what time of day is this?

EB: This is approximately 9:00 in the morning, or something -- you know, in
that area. And he looked up at us and he said the same thing he said to the
American people. He said, "I want you to know I did not have sexual
relationships [sic] with this woman Monica Lewinsky. I did not ask anybody
to lie. And when the facts come out, you'll understand."(437)

Mr. Bowles testified that he took the President's statements seriously:
"All I can tell you is: This guy who I've worked for looked me in the eye and
said he did not have sexual relationships with her. And if I didn't believe him,
I couldn't stay. So I believe him."(438)
Mr. Bowles repeated the President's false and misleading statement to the
grand jury.

Mr. Blumenthal stated that he spoke to Mrs. Clinton on the afternoon of
January 21, 1998, and to the President early that evening. During those
conversations, both the President and Mrs. Clinton offered an explanation for
the President's meetings with Ms. Lewinsky, and President Clinton offered
an explanation for Ms. Lewinsky's allegations of a sexual relationship.(440)

Testifying before the grand jury, Mr. Blumenthal related his discussion
with President Clinton:

I said to the President, "What have you done wrong?" And he said, "Nothing. I
haven't done anything wrong."

. . . And it was at that point that he gave his account of what had
happened to me and he said that Monica -- and it came very fast. He said,
"Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me." He rebuffed her.
He said, "I've gone down that road before, I've caused pain for a lot of people
and I'm not going to do that again."

She threatened him. She said that she would tell people they'd had an
affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it
and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the
stalker any more.(441)

Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President appeared "upset" during this
conversation.(442)

He said that he remembered calling her when Betty Currie's brother died and
that he left a message on her voice machine that Betty's brother had died and he
said she was close to Betty and had been very kind to Betty. And that's what he
recalled.(443)

According to Mr. Blumenthal, the President said that the call he made to
Ms. Lewinsky relating to Betty's brother was the "only one he could
remember."(444)
That was false: The President and Ms. Lewinsky talked often on the phone, and
the subject matter of the calls was memorable.

A grand juror asked Mr. Blumenthal whether the President had said that
his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky included any kind of sexual activity.
Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President's response was "the opposite. He
told me that she came on to him and that he had told her he couldn't have sexual
relations with her and that she threatened him. That is what he told me."(445)

Mr. Blumenthal testified that after the President relayed this
information to him, he "certainly believed his story. It was a very heartfelt
story, he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him."(446)
Mr. Blumenthal repeated to the grand jury the false statements that the
President made to him.

Regarding that conversation, Mr. Ickes testified: "The two things that I
recall, the two things that he again repeated in public -- had already said
publicly and repeated in public that same Monday morning was that he had not
had -- he did not have a -- or he had not had a sexual relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky and that he had done nothing -- now I'm paraphrasing --
had done nothing to ask anybody to change their story or suborn perjury or
obstruct justice."(449)

Mr. Ickes recalled that the President probably volunteered this
information.(450)
Mr. Ickes repeated the President's false statements to the grand jury.

The President says that at the time he spoke to his aides, he chose his words
with great care so that, in his view, his statements would be literally true
because he was referring only to intercourse. That explanation is undermined by
the President's testimony before the grand jury that his denials "may have been
misleading" and by the contradictory testimony by the aides themselves --
particularly John Podesta, who says that the President specifically denied oral
sex with Ms. Lewinsky. Moreover, on January 24, 1998, the White House issued
talking points for its staff, and those talking points refute the President's
literal truth argument: The talking points state as the President's view the
belief that a relationship that includes oral sex is "of course" a "sexual
relationship."(453)

For all of these reasons, there is substantial and credible information that
the President improperly tampered with witnesses during the grand jury
investigation.

The President has pursued a strategy of (i) deceiving the American
people and Congress in January 1998, (ii) delaying and impeding the
criminal investigation for seven months, and (iii) deceiving the American
people and Congress again in August 1998.

The next evening, the President dissuaded Mr. Morris from any plan to
"blast[] Monica Lewinsky 'out of the water.'" The President indicated that
"there's some slight chance that she may not be cooperating with Starr and we
don't want to alienate her."(458)

The President himself spoke publicly about the matter several times in the
initial days after the story broke. On January 26, the President was definitive:
"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm
going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss
Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These
allegations are false."(459)

The President's emphatic denial to the American people was false. And his
statement was not an impromptu comment in the heat of a press conference. To the
contrary, it was an intentional and calculated falsehood to deceive the Congress
and the American people.(460)

The most senior officials in the Executive Branch served as additional
(albeit unwitting) agents of the President's deception. The Cabinet and White
House aides stated emphatically that the allegations were false. For example,
White House spokesperson Michael McCurry was asked whether the President's
denial covered all forms of sexual contact, and Mr. McCurry stated that "I think
every American that heard him knows exactly what he meant."(462)
So, too, White House Communications Director Ann Lewis said on January 26, 1998:
"I can say with absolute assurance the President of the United States did not
have a sexual relationship because I have heard the President of the United
States say so. He has said it, he could not be more clear. He could not have
been more direct."(463)
She added: "Sex is sex, even in Washington. I've been assured."(464)

After a Cabinet meeting on January 23, 1998, in which the President offered
denials, several members of the Cabinet appeared outside the White House.
Secretary of State Albright stated: "I believe that the allegations are
completely untrue."(465)
Coupled with the President's firm denial, the united front of the President's
closest advisors helped shape perception of the issue.

Such cooperation did not occur. The White House's approach to the
constitutionally based principle of Executive Privilege most clearly exposed the
non-cooperation. In 1994, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler issued an opinion
that the Clinton Administration would not invoke Executive Privilege for cases
involving personal wrongdoing by any government official.(469)
By 1998, however, the President had blended the official and personal dimensions
to the degree that the President's private counsel stated in a legal brief filed
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: "In a very
real and significant way, the objectives of William J. Clinton, the person, and
his Administration (the Clinton White House) are one and the same."(470)

After the Monica Lewinsky investigation began, the President invoked
Executive Privilege for the testimony of five witnesses: Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl
Mills, Nancy Hernreich, Sidney Blumenthal, and Lanny Breuer. These claims were
patently groundless. Even for official communications within the scope of
the privilege, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1974 in United States
v. Nixon(471) that
the Executive Privilege gives way in the face of the compelling need for
evidence in criminal proceedings.

The President's assertion of Executive Privilege for Ms. Hernreich, an
assistant who manages the secretarial work for the Oval Office,(472)
was frivolous. At the time that the President was asserting Executive Privilege
for one assistant, the President's other assistant (Betty Currie) had already
testified extensively.

Based on Nixon, the OIC filed a motion to compel the testimony of
Hernreich, Lindsey, and Blumenthal. The United States District Court held a
hearing on March 20. Just before the hearing, the White House -- without
explanation -- dropped its Executive Privilege claim as to Ms. Hernreich.(473)

On May 4, 1998, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled against the
President on the Executive Privilege issue.(474)
After the White House filed a notice of appeal, the OIC filed an expedited
petition for certiorari before judgment in the Supreme Court. The President
thereupon dropped his claim of Executive Privilege.

The tactics employed by the White House have not been confined to the
judicial process. On March 24, while the President was traveling in Africa, he
was asked about the assertion of Executive Privilege. He responded, "You should
ask someone who knows." He also stated "I haven't discussed that with the
lawyers. I don't know."(475)

This was untrue. Unbeknownst to the public, in a declaration filed in
District Court on March 17 (seven days before the President's public expression
of ignorance), White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff informed Chief Judge
Johnson that he "ha[d] discussed" the matter with the President, who had
directed the assertion of Executive Privilege.(476)

The deception has continued. Because the President withdrew his Executive
Privilege claim while the case was pending in the Supreme Court of the United
States, it was assumed that the President would no longer assert Executive
Privilege. But that assumption proved incorrect. White House attorney Lanny
Breuer appeared before the grand jury on August 4, 1998, and invoked Executive
Privilege. He would not answer, for example, whether the President had told him
about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and whether they had discussed the
gifts he had given to Monica Lewinsky.(477)
On August 11, 1998, Chief Judge Johnson denied the Executive Privilege claim as
a basis for refusing to testify, and ordered Mr. Breuer to testify.(478)

On August 11, 1998, Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills testified and
repeatedly asserted Executive Privilege at the President's direction.(479)
The breadth of the claim was striking: The privilege was asserted not only for
Ms. Mills's communications with the President, senior staff, and staff
members of the White House Counsel's Office -- but also for Ms. Mills's
communications with private lawyers for the President, private
lawyers for grand jury witnesses, and Betty Currie.(480)

On August 17, the President testified before the grand jury. At the request
of a grand juror, the OIC asked the President about his assertions of Executive
Privilege and why he had withdrawn the claim before the Supreme Court. The
President replied that "I didn't really want to advance an executive privilege
claim in this case beyond having it litigated, so that we, we had not given up
on principal [sic] this matter, without having some judge rule on
it. . . . I strongly felt we should not appeal your victory on
the executive privilege issue."(481)

Four days after this sworn statement, on August 21, 1998, the President filed
a notice of appeal with respect to the Executive Privilege claim for Lanny
Breuer that Chief Judge Johnson had denied ten days earlier (and six days before
the President's testimony). In addition, Bruce Lindsey appeared again before the
grand jury on August 28, 1998, and the President again asserted Executive
Privilege with respect to his testimony -- even though the President had dropped
the claim of Executive Privilege for Mr. Lindsey while the case was pending
before the Supreme Court of the United States in June.(482)

The Executive Privilege was not the only claim of privilege interposed to
prevent the grand jury from gathering relevant information. The President also
acquiesced in the Secret Service's attempt to have the Judiciary craft a new
protective function privilege (rejecting requests by this Office that the
President order the Secret Service officers to testify). The District Court and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the
privilege claim. The litigation was disruptive to the Secret Service and to the
grand jury. The frivolity of the claim is evidenced by the Chief Justice's
decision to reject the Secret Service's request for a stay without even
referring the matter to the full Court. All of that litigation would have been
unnecessary had the President testified in February instead of August, or had he
taken the position that relevant facts should be fully available to the grand
jury.

The President sought to delay his testimony.(483)
Shortly after a hearing before the District Court on the President's motion for
a continuance, the President and the OIC reached an agreement by which the
President would testify on August 17 via live video feed to the grand jury. In a
Rose Garden ceremony on July 31, 1998, the President stated to the country: "I'm
looking forward to the opportunity . . . of testifying. I will do so completely
and truthfully."(484)

At the outset of his grand jury appearance, the President similarly stated:
"I will answer each question as accurately and fully as I can."(485)
The President then read a prepared statement in which he admitted "inappropriate
intimate contact" with Ms. Lewinsky.(486)
Despite his statement that he would answer each question, the President refused
to answer specific questions about that contact (other than to indicate that it
was not intercourse and did not involve the direct touching of
Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitals).(487)

The President's claim that his testimony during the civil deposition was
legally accurate -- which he made to the grand jury and to the American people
on August 17 -- perpetuates the deception and concealment that has accompanied
his relationship with Monica Lewinsky since his first sexual encounter with her
on November 15, 1995.

1. The pseudonym Jane Doe was used during discovery to refer
to certain women whose identities were protected from the public.

2. For a discussion of the procedural background to the
Jones case, see Appendix, Tab C.

3. Sections 1621 and 1623 of Title 18 (perjury) carry a
penalty of imprisonment of not more than five years for knowingly making a
false, material statement under oath, including in any ancillary court
proceeding. An "ancillary proceeding" includes a deposition in a civil case.
United States v. McAfee, 8 F.3d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir. 1993); United
States v. Scott, 682 F.2d 695, 698 (8th Cir. 1982). The perjury statutes
apply to statements made during civil proceedings. As one United States Court of
Appeals recently stated, "we categorically reject any suggestion, implicit or
otherwise, that perjury is somehow less serious when made in a civil proceeding.
Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that results in
incalculable harm to the functioning and integrity of the legal system as well
as to private individuals." United States v. Holland, 22 F.3d 1040, 1047
(11th Cir. 1994); see alsoUnited States v. Wilkinson, 137 F.3d
214, 225 (4th Cir. 1998).

6. Written interrogatories are a common discovery device in
federal civil cases by which a party serves written questions on the opposing
party. The rules require that they be answered under oath and therefore under
penalty of perjury. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.

7. V002-DC-00000016-32 (Plaintiff's Second Set of
Interrogatories, see Interrogatory no. 10). The interrogatory in the text
reflects Judge Wright's order, dated December 11, 1997, limiting the scope of
the question to cover only women who were state or federal employees at the
relevant times.

8. V002-DC-00000052-55 (President Clinton's Supplemental
Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories, see Response to
Interrogatory no. 10).

17. Id. at 8. Ms. Lewinsky stated that the
hallway outside the Oval Office study was more suitable for their encounters
than the Oval Office because the hallway had no windows. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at
34-35.

28. Id. at 19. They engaged in oral-anal contact as
well. See Lewinsky 8/26/98 Depo. at 18-20.

29. Id. at 21-22. This was shortly after their first
phone sex encounter, which occurred on January 16, 1996. Id. at 22;
Lewinsky 7/30/98 Int. at 9. Phone sex occurs when one or both parties masturbate
while one or both parties talk in a sexually explicit manner on the telephone.

48. Lewinsky 7/30/98 Int. at 11-16; Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at
24. The summary chart of contacts between the President and Ms. Lewinsky,
GJ Exhibit ML-7, which is based on information provided by Ms. Lewinsky,
lists 17 separate phone sex calls. Id. at 27-28. Ms. Lewinsky also
gave the President Vox, a novel about phone sex. Id.

While phone sex may not itself constitute a "sexual relationship," it adds
detail to Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and underscores the sexual and intimate
nature of the relationship between the President and Ms. Lewinsky.

Ms. Lewinsky also said that the President left a few messages on her
home answering machine (although he told her he did not like to leave messages).
Ms. Lewinsky provided four microcassettes of four messages to the OIC on
July 29, 1998. FBI Receipt for Property Received, dated 7/29/98.

53. Catherine Davis 3/17/98 GJ at 9-10. Ms. Catherine
Davis talked to Ms. Lewinsky by telephone an average of once a week until
April 1997 when Ms. Davis moved to Tokyo; thereafter she and
Ms. Lewinsky remained in touch through e-mail. Id. at 14, 27.

61. Id. at 26 ("She told me that she had given him
[oral sex] and that she had had all of her clothes off, but that he only had his
shirt off and that she had given him oral sex and they kissed and fondled each
other and that they didn't have sex. That was kind of a little bit of a letdown
for her."); id. at 29 ("He put his face in her chest. And, you know, just
oral sex on her part, you know, to him.").

77. Id. at 2-3. Dr. Kassorla advised
Ms. Lewinsky against the relationship, stating that she was an employee
having an office romance with a superior and that the relationship would cost
Ms. Lewinsky her job. Id. at 2.

81. She testified that the encounter concluded with the
President masturbating into a bathroom sink. Id. at 30-31.
Ms. Finerman indicated that "it was something I didn't want to talk about,"
and Ms. Lewinsky "sort of clammed up" thereafter. Id. at 35. See
also Lewinsky 8/26/98 Depo. at 18.

89. The President and Ms. Lewinsky had ten sexual
encounters that included direct contact with the genitalia of at least one
party, and two other encounters that included kissing. On nine of the ten
occasions, Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on the President. On nine
occasions, the President touched and kissed Ms. Lewinsky's bare breasts. On
four occasions, the President also touched her genitalia. On one occasion, the
President inserted a cigar into her vagina to stimulate her. The President and
Ms. Lewinsky also had phone sex on at least fifteen occasions.

91. He provided his responses during his August 17, 1998
grand jury appearance; those responses are separately analyzed in Ground II.

92. Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, and Judge Susan Webber Wright,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, each has one
copy of the videotape, and the Congress may see fit to seek the videotape from
either court. The videotape is valuable in facilitating a proper assessment of
the facts and evidence presented in this Referral.

96. The definition used at the President's deposition also
covers acts in which the deponent "cause[d] contact" with the genitalia or anus
of "any person." When he testified to the grand jury, the President said that
this aspect of the definition still does not cover his receiving oral sex. The
President said that the word "cause" implies "forcing to me" and "forcible
abusive behavior." Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 17. And thus the President said that he
did not lie under oath in denying that he "caused" contact with the genitalia of
any person because his activity with Ms. Lewinsky did not include any
nonconsensual behavior. Id. at 18.

97. She testified that she had orgasms on three of the four
occasions. We note that fact because (i) the definition referred to direct
contact with the genitalia with the "intent to arouse or gratify" and
(ii) the President has denied such contact. Ms. Lewinsky also
testified that on one occasion, the President put his hand over her mouth during
a sexual encounter to keep her quiet. Lewinsky 7/31/98 Int. at 3.

102. Following the President's public admission of an
inappropriate relationship, Judge Wright stated sua sponte in an order
issued on September 1, 1998: "Although the Court has concerns about the nature
of the President's January 17, 1998 deposition testimony given his recent public
statements, the Court makes no findings at this time regarding whether the
President may be in contempt." Jones v. Clinton, No. LR-C-94-290
(September 1, 1998), Unpublished Order at 7 n.5.

104. Id. at 9-10. See also Excerpt from
President Clinton's Televised Address to the American People, 8/17/98,
reprinted in The Washington Post, at A5 (8/18/98) ("In a deposition in
January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While
my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.").

117. The President contended that he had only one
encounter in 1997 with Ms. Lewinsky, whereas she says that there were two.
The motive for making a false statement on that issue is less clear, except that
perhaps the President wanted to portray the 1997 relationship as an isolated
incident.

118. Ms. Jones's attorneys had earlier served
President Clinton with a document request that sought documents reflecting "any
communications, meetings or visits involving" President Clinton and
Ms. Lewinsky. 1414-DC-00001534-46.

119. Throughout the Jones case, Judge Susan Webber
Wright ruled that Ms. Jones was entitled to discover information regarding
the nature of President Clinton's relationship with government employees,
including Monica Lewinsky, a federal employee at the time. See, e.g.,
921-DC-00000459-66; 920-DC-00000517-25; 1414-DC-00001006-14; 921-DC-00000736-44;
921-DC-00000751-52; 1414-DC-00001188-92.

121. Ms. Lewinsky testified that many of her sexual
encounters with the President occurred in this windowless hallway. Lewinsky
8/6/96 GJ at 34-36.

122. The President had earlier testified that during the
government shutdown in November 1995, Ms. Lewinsky was working as an intern
in the Chief of Staff's Office, and had brought the President and others some
pizza. Clinton 1/17/98 Depo. at 58.

132. Currie 1/27/98 GJ at 32-33. See also Currie
5/6/98 GJ at 98. The Oval Office area includes the study, dining room, kitchen,
bathroom, and hallway connecting the area. See Appendix, Exhibit D
(diagram of Oval Office area).

133. Currie 1/27/98 GJ at 34-35 (recalling that after the
President's radio address, the President told Ms. Lewinsky he wanted to
show her his collection of political buttons and took her into the Oval Office
study for 15 to 20 minutes while Ms. Currie waited nearby, in the pantry or
the dining room).

134. Currie 1/27/98 GJ at 36-38 (testifying that
Ms. Lewinsky came to the White House and met with the President alone for
15 or 20 minutes). See also Currie 5/14/98 GJ at 116.

135. Currie 1/27/98 GJ at 35-36 (testifying that
Ms. Lewinsky and the President were in the Oval Office for "[p]erhaps 30
minutes."). Again, Ms. Currie testified that she believes no one else was
present. See also Currie 5/6/98 GJ at 103-105.

157. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 151. Ms. Lewinsky's
subpoena directed in part: "Please produce each and every gift including, but
not limited to, any and all dresses, accessories, and jewelry, and/or hat pins
given to you by, or on behalf of, Defendant Clinton." 902-DC-00000135-38.

158. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 33, 152. See also
Lewinsky 2/1/98 Statement at 7. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky had told
Ms. Tripp about it. Ms. Lewinsky had also discussed the hat pin and
the subpoena's request for the hat pin with Mr. Jordan. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ
at 132, 140.

159. Currie 5/6/98 GJ at 142 (relating incident where the
President asks Ms. Currie about the hat pin he gave to Ms. Lewinsky).
After this criminal investigation started, Ms. Currie turned over a box of
items -- including a hat pin -- that had been given to her by Ms. Lewinsky.
Ms. Currie understood from Ms. Lewinsky that the box did contain gifts
from the President. SeeCurrie 5/6/98 GJ at 107. Ms. Lewinsky
testified that the box contained gifts from the President, including the hat
pin. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 154-162.

160. Ms. Lewinsky testified that the President had
given her a gold brooch, and she made near-contemporaneous statements to
Ms. Erbland, Ms. Raines, Ms. Ungvari, and Ms. Tripp
regarding the gift. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 26-28; GJ Exhibit ML-7; Erbland
2/12/98 GJ at 41; Raines 1/29/98 GJ at 53-55; Ungvari 3/19/98 GJ at 44; Tripp
7/29/98 GJ at 105.

161. Ms. Lewinsky testified that Leaves of
Grass was "the most sentimental gift he had given me." Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at
156. Ms. Lewinsky made near-contemporaneous statements to her mother, her
aunt, and her friends Ms. Davis, Ms. Erbland, and Ms. Raines that
the President had given her Leaves of Grass. Davis 3/17/98 GJ at 30-31;
Erbland 2/12/98 GJ at 40-41; Finerman 3/18/98 Depo. at 15-16; Marcia Lewis
2/10/98 GJ at 51-52; Marcia Lewis 2/11/98 GJ at 10 ("[S]he liked the book of
poetry very much."); Raines 1/29/98 GJ 53-55.

172. V002-DC-00000471. Ms. Lewinsky testified that
she bought and gave the President that book in early January 1998, and that when
she talked to him on January 5, 1998, he acknowledged that he had received the
book. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 189-192. When testifying before the grand jury, the
President acknowledged receiving "a particularly nice book for Christmas, an
antique book on Presidents. She knew that I collected old books and it was a
very nice thing." Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 36.

175. Id.; Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 26-28; Lewinsky
7/27/98 Int. at 13. The President did not turn over this antique book in
response to a subpoena.

176. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 27-28; GJ Exhibit ML-7. The
President did not produce The Notebook in response to a subpoena.

177. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 27-28, 182-183; GJ Exhibit
ML-7. Ms. Lewinsky saw a copy of the book in the President's study in
November 1997. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 183. White House records list Oy Vey
and Vox on an October 10, 1997, catalog of books in the West Wing.
1361-DC-000000029 (Catalog of Books in the West Wing Presidential Study as of 10
October 1997). The President did not produce Oy Vey in response to a
subpoena.

178. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 27-28, 183-84; Lewinsky 7/27/98
Int. at 13; GJ Exhibit ML-7. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she had seen the
book in the President's study in November 1997. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 183-84.
The President did not produce this book in response to a subpoena.

181. These included a Sherlock Holmes game sometime after
Christmas 1996; a golf ball and tees on February 28, 1997; after the President
injured his leg in March 1997, a care package filled with whimsical gifts, such
as a magnet with the Presidential seal for his metal crutches, a license plate
with "Bill" for his wheelchair, and knee pads with the Presidential seal; a
Banana Republic casual shirt and a puzzle on golf mysteries on May 24, 1997; the
card game "Royalty" in mid-August 1997; shortly before Halloween of 1997, a
package filled with Halloween-related items, such as a pumpkin lapel pin, a
wooden letter opener with a frog on the handle, and a plastic pumpkin filled
with candy; and on December 6, 1997, a Starbucks Santa Monica mug and a Hugs and
Kisses box. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 27-28; GJ Exhibit ML-7; Lewinsky 7/27/97 Int.
at 12-15.

191. In his grand jury testimony, the President said that
this question at his civil deposition confused him and that he thought that the
questioner was asking whether he could list specific gifts he had given her
rather than whether he had ever given Ms. Lewinsky a gift. Clinton
8/17/98 GJ at 51-52. Even if that explanation were credited, the President's
answer to the hat pin question is inaccurate, particularly because he had
discussed it with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28, according to her testimony.

196. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 123-24; Lewinsky 2/1/98
Statement at 4 ("When asked what to do if she was subpoenaed, the Pres.
suggested she could sign an affidavit to try to satisfy their inquiry and not be
deposed.").

197. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 123 (emphasis added); Lewinsky
2/1/98 Statement at 4 ("In general, Ms. L. should say she visited the WH to
see Ms. Currie and, on occasion when working at the WH, she brought him
letters when no one else was around.").

225. Id. at 152. This statement was false.
Ms. Lewinsky had "in fact . . . told people about the hat pin." Id.

226. Id. at 152. In a later grand jury appearance,
Ms. Lewinsky again described the conversation, and said "I don't remember
his response. I think it was something like, 'I don't know,' or 'Hmm' or --
there really was no response." Lewinsky 8/20/98 GJ at 66.

255. Id. In addition, under her immunity agreement,
Ms. Lewinsky has no apparent motive to shift blame on this issue. In fact,
just the opposite. If the truth were that she had called Ms. Currie, she
could have said as much, and it would not have affected Ms. Lewinsky's
legal rights or obligations at all. Moreover, she stated that does not want to
harm the President with her truthful testimony. Lewinsky 8/26/98 Depo. at 69.

260. Lewinsky 8/20/98 GJ at 5 (Ms. Lewinsky could not
visit the President unless Ms. Currie cleared her in); see
also Lewinsky 7/31/98 Int. at 4-5 (Currie was "in the loop" when it
came to keeping Lewinsky's relationship with the President discreet); Currie GJ
5/6/98 at 14-15, 57-58, 97-98.

278. Ms. Lewinsky spoke to one of her friends,
Catherine Allday Davis in early January. Ms. Lewinsky informed her of her
situation. Ms. Davis said that "I was very scared for her" and "I didn't
want to see her being like Susan McDougal." Catherine Davis 3/17/98 GJ at 80.
Ms. Davis said that she did not want Monica "to lie to protect the
President." Id. at 173.

279. Lewinsky 2/1/98 Statement at 9; see also
Lewinsky 8/19/98 Int. at 4.

301. Id. at 27-28; GJ Exhibit ML-7.
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she met with the President in private after she
left her position at the White House on eleven dates in 1997: February 28
(following the radio address), March 29, May 24, July 4, July 14, July 24,
August 16, October 11, November 13, December 6, and December 28.

312. Id. at 117. According to Ms. Lewinsky,
this was the conversation in which the President told her that her name was on
the Jones witness list, and in which she and the President discussed her
filing an affidavit and the continued use of cover stories. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ
at 121-23.

313. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 118, 119-20 (emphasis added).
The President repeated at several other points in his testimony that he did not
remember what he said to Ms. Lewinsky in the phone conversation on December
17. Seeid. at 117 ("I don't remember exactly what I told her that
night."); id. at 118-19 ("you are trying to get me to characterize
something [the cover stories] that I'm -- that I don't know if I said or not").

314. The OIC is aware of no evidence that Mr. Bennett
knew that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit was false at the time of the President's
deposition.

317. Ms. Lewinsky said that on October 6, 1997, she
had been told by Linda Tripp that a friend of Tripp's at the National Security
Council had reported that Lewinsky would not be getting a White House job.
Ms. Lewinsky said that at that point she finally decided to move to New
York. Lewinsky 7/31/98 Int. at 9-10.

327. Lewinsky 7/31/98 Int. at 12. Ms. Lewinsky said
that she spoke to President Clinton about the phone call on October 23, during
which she suggested to the President that she was interested in some job other
than at the United Nations. Id. According to Ms. Lewinsky, the
President replied that he just wanted her to have some options. Id.

Ms. Lewinsky said that she spoke to the President again on October 30
about the interview, in which she expressed anxiety about meeting with the
Ambassador. Ms. Lewinsky said that the President told her to call Betty
Currie after the interview so he would know how the interview went. Id.
at 13.

334. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 26-27 and GJ Exhibit ML-7.
Ms. Lewinsky stated that just before Thanksgiving, 1997, she called Betty
Currie and asked her to contact Vernon Jordan and prod him along in the job
search. Lewinsky 8/4/98 Int. at 8. It was Ms. Lewinsky's understanding that
Jordan was helping her at the request of the President and Ms. Currie.
Id.

335. See Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 84-85. Under the
federal witness tampering statutes, it is a crime to corruptly persuade a
witness to alter his testimony. See 18 U.S.C. ßß 1503, 1512.

347. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 151-52; Lewinsky 7/27/98 Int.
at 7. This was the same meeting where the President and Ms. Lewinsky
discussed their concerns over the Lewinsky subpoena and its demand for the
production of gifts.

361. The arrangement may not be explicitly spelled out. In
this case, for example, there is no evidence that Ms. Lewinsky received an
explicit proposal where someone said, "I'll give you a job if you lie under
oath."

362. In a recorded conversation, Ms. Lewinsky
discussed the job assistance various individuals, including Vernon Jordan, gave
Webster Hubbell, and she expressed her concern that someone could similarly
consider the assistance she was provided as improper in some manner: "I think
somebody could construe, okay? Somebody could construe or say, 'Well, they gave
her a job to shut her up. They made her happy.'" T2 at 11.

364. Id. at 72 (emphasis added). See alsoid. at 73 ("[m]y understanding was . . . that she was going to move to
New York and that she was looking for some advice [from Jordan] about what she
should do when she got there").

367. 833-DC-0017890 (Pentagon phone records). See
also Jordan 3/3/98 GJ at 92-93 (testifying that Ms. Lewinsky called him
up and she was "very upset" about "being served with a subpoena in the Paula
Jones case").

369. Id. at 133-34. Mr. Jordan had told
Ms. Lewinsky to come see him at 5:00 p.m. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ at 129. See
also Jordan 5/5/98 GJ at 144 (relating why he wanted to tell the President
about Ms. Lewinsky's subpoena).

372. Jordan 3/3/98 GJ at 167-69. White House records
indicate that Mr. Jordan was scheduled to arrive at 8:00 p.m., and actually
arrived at 8:15 p.m. See 1178-DC-00000026 (WAVES record). Mr. Jordan
testified, however, that he is certain that he did not arrive at the White House
until after 10 p.m. Jordan 5/5/98 GJ at 164.

384. That matter is still under criminal investigation by
this Office.

385. Under the federal witness tampering and obstruction
of justice statutes, it is a crime to attempt to corruptly persuade another
person with intent to influence the person's testimony in an official
proceeding. See 18 U.S.C. ßß 1503, 1512.

392. Currie 1/24/98 Int. at 8 ("CURRIE advised CLINTON may
have mentioned that CURRIE might be asked about LEWINSKY"); Currie 5/6/98 GJ at
118 (Q: "Didn't the President talk to you about Monica's name coming up in those
cases [Whitewater or Jones v. Clinton]?" BC: "I have a vague recollection of him
saying that her name may come up. Either he told me, somebody told me, but I
don't know how it would come up.").

The President returned to the White House from the deposition at 4:26 p.m.
1248-DC-00000288 (Kearney's logs).

394. Currie 1/27/98 GJ at 65-66. The President confirmed
that he called Betty Currie shortly after his deposition, and that he asked her
to come in on Sunday, her day off. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 148-49.

The next day at 1:11 p.m., the President again called Ms. Currie at
home. Currie 5/7/98 GJ at 85. GJ Exhibit BC 3-11, 1248-DC-00000311 (Presidential
Call Log, Jan. 18, 1998). Ms. Currie could not recall the content of the
second call, stating: "He may have called me on Sunday at 1:00 after church to
see what time I can actually come in. I don't know. That's the best I can
recollect." Id. at 89.

395. Currie 5/7/98 GJ at 91. See also Clinton
8/17/98 GJ at 149 (acknowledging that Ms. Currie normally would not be in
the White House on Sunday).

398. Currie 1/27/98 GJ at 71, 73-74. At different points
in the grand jury testimony, there are minor variations in the wording used or
agreed to by Ms. Currie in recounting the President's statements.
Compareid. at 71 ("You were always there when Monica was there."
(Currie statement)) withid. at 74 (Q: "'You were always there
when she was there, right?' Is that the way you remember the President stating
it to you?" BC: "That's how I remember him stating it to me.").

414. V006-DC-00002069; V006-DC-00002070 (White House
telephone records). Ms. Currie testified that she probably called the
President to tell him that she had not yet spoken to Ms. Lewinsky.
Ms. Currie does not remember the substance of the conversations with the
President for either of the calls that he made to her. Currie 5/7/98 GJ at
106-07. The phone calls from the President were approximately one and two
minutes in length. That Monday, January 19, was a holiday, and Ms. Currie
was not at work.

416. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 56-57 (emphasis added). See
also id. at 131-32 (Q: "You said that you spoke to her in an attempt to
refresh your own recollection about the events involving Monica Lewinsky, is
that right?" WJC: "Yes.").

424. Two federal criminal statutes, Sections 1512 and 1503
of Title 18 of the United States Code, prohibit misleading potential witnesses
with the intent to influence their grand jury testimony. Section 1512 provides
that whoever "corruptly . . . engages in misleading conduct toward another
person, with intent to -- (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of
any person in an official proceeding . . . shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 18 U.S.C. ß 1512(b). It is no
defense to a charge of witness tampering that the official proceeding had not
yet begun, nor is it a defense that the testimony sought to be influenced turned
out to be inadmissible or subject to a claim of privilege. 18 U.S.C. ß 1512(e).

Section 1503 provides that whoever "corruptly or by threats or force . . .
influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede
the due administration of justice" has committed a felony. 18 U.S.C. ß
1503(a)-(b).

425. Podesta 2/5/98 GJ at 13. Mr. Podesta has served
as Deputy Chief of Staff since January 1997, and previously served as Staff
Secretary for the Clinton Administration from 1993 through 1995. Podesta 2/5/98
GJ at 9-10.

446. Blumenthal 6/25/98 GJ at 17. See also
Blumenthal 6/25/98 GJ at 26 ("My understanding was that the accusations against
him which appeared in the press that day were false, that he had not done
anything wrong").

447. Ickes 7/23/98 GJ at 8. Mr. Ickes worked as
Deputy Chief of Staff for President Clinton from early 1994 through January
1997. Id.

448. Ickes 6/10/98 GJ at 21-22, 66 (meeting occurred on
Monday following the week that the media first reported the Lewinsky story).

449. Ickes 6/10/98 GJ at 73 (emphasis added). See
also Ickes 8/5/98 GJ at 88 ("[H]e denied to me that he had had a sexual
relationship. I don't know the exact phrase, but the word 'sexual' was there.
And he denied any obstruction of justice").

459. Televised Remarks by President Clinton at the White
House Education News Conference, Monday, January 26, 1998, 10:17 a.m.

460. Other than Ms. Lewinsky's status and age,
several aspects of the relationship could have raised public concerns.

First, Ms. Lewinsky lost her job at the White House in April 1996
and was transferred to the Pentagon. Under oath, Ms. Lewinsky was asked:
"Do you believe that if you hadn't had a sexual relationship with the President
that you would have kept your job at the White House?" She answered: "Yes."
Lewinsky 8/26/98 Depo. at 60.

Second, Ms. Lewinsky was asked, "Do you believe that your
difficulty or inability to return to employment at the White House was because
of your sexual relationship with him?" She answered: "Yes. Or the issues that,
or that the problems that people perceived that really were based in truth
because I had a relationship with the President." Lewinsky 8/26/98 Depo. at 60.

Third, in late 1997, the President saw to it that Ms. Lewinsky
received extraordinary job assistance. Such assistance might have been tied to
her involvement in the Jones case, as discussed earlier, as well as a
benefit to an ex-paramour. If the latter was a factor, then the President's
actions discriminated against all of those interns and employees who did not
receive the same benefit.

473. Even though the White House later withdrew the claim,
the mere assertion of Executive Privilege as to Ms. Hernreich is important.
Such an invocation causes a needless, but substantial, expenditure of litigation
resources and delays and impedes the grand jury process. The overuse of
Executive Privilege against the United States in the criminal process
thus ultimately hinders the faithful execution of the laws -- as the Supreme
Court unanimously recognized twenty-four years ago in United States v.
Nixon.

482. Lindsey 8/28/98 GJ at 58. The President's use and
withdrawal of Executive Privilege was not new to this Office. In August 1996,
the White House invoked Executive Privilege to prevent White House attorneys
from producing documents regarding their communications with Hillary Rodham
Clinton. After the OIC filed a motion to compel in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the claim was withdrawn, and the
White House relied solely on a claim of government attorney-client privilege,
which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected. The
public never knew at that time of the President's assertion of Executive
Privilege in that case.

In 1997, the President again asserted Executive Privilege -- this time to
prevent Thomas "Mack" McLarty from testifying fully. The conversations in
question related in part to Mr. McLarty's efforts to find employment for
Webster Hubbell as Mr. Hubbell was resigning his position as Associate
Attorney General. The President withdrew the assertion before the OIC filed a
motion to compel.